User:AzulRover/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Is the content up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

What is the article's overall status?
What are the article's strengths?
How can the article be improved?
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

(Provide a link to the article here.)

1st option: Coiled coil - Wikipedia

2nd option: Segré–Silberberg effect - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Option 1: I'm primarily considering this article, because from what I understand of coiled coils and their prevalence in proteins, this article covers an insufficient amount of breadth on the topic. This topic comes up in my field of research in my lab, as coiled coils affect the structure and function of the protein we study, SNAP-25.

Option 2: I'm thinking about choosing it because it's related to my field of study. It matters because it affects blood flow. My preliminary impression is that it is well-researched; it seems to follow reasonable mathematical and physical guidelines, and the sources are cited at places that make sense.

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Option 1: This article is about a broadly found concept in biophysical chemistry. Motifs and their possible functions in proteins are studied regularly, and the coiled coil motif shows up very commonly. This article does a good job of explaining what the coiled coil is, and the media for the article is appropriate. It is written neutrally; however, in my lack of experience on the topic and on Wikipedia, it's odd to me that it does not mention several of the common places coiled coils are found, such as in channels. However, in a highly studied topic, only two sources are from the last five years, and five total are from within the last ten years, out of 18 sources total. More recent data could be found.

Option 2: This article is alright. It has no media, and a gif or image showing flow of an object through a tube while obeying this principle would be helpful. There is no talk page, and the sources (scientific articles) are hidden behind a paywall, with only a little bit available. At the same time, this enhances the plausibility of authority on the subject.

The timeframe for sources is one from 2007, and a couple from the 1960s. Considering this is a topic from the 1960s, that's understandable. However, it still feels a little out of date for what feels like a relevant topic, and only one of the sources is by someone other than the original researchers of this principle. It could be improved by noting how the topic has been relevant in more recent years, and by including more sources than just the original researchers of this principle.

--~~~~