User:BioNarrator/Choose an Article

Article Selection

Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Title: Vaginal Anamolies
Article Evaluation: This article was really interesting, and I appreciate that the user kept a neutral tone. That said, citations were lacking throughout, which made some parts feel less solid. The "Signs & Symptoms" section, in particular, could have used more detail. There was also an imbalance in how the information was laid out—the introduction and history took up a lot of space, while other important sections felt underdeveloped. Vaginal anomalies cover a wide range of characteristics, but the page didn’t dive deep enough into the molecular aspects, instead leaning on a lot of "maybes." While the information was mostly succinct, I’d love to see more on the molecular mechanisms, clearer breakdowns of signs & symptoms, and a more thorough discussion of treatment options and comorbidities. That would really help capture the full scope of vaginal anomalies.
Sources: Vaginal anomalies

Article title: Transdetermination
Article Evaluation: The article gives a brief but comprehensive definition of transdetermination, especially in contrast to Transdifferentiation, which has multiple well-developed subsections like discovery, natural examples, methods & mechanisms, and issues. This stark difference highlights the need for expansion on the transdetermination page. Adding multiple subsections—covering its history, discovery, research developments, and the various methods and models used to study it—would help provide a more balanced and thorough overview of the topic.
Sources: Transdetermination

Article title: Polyspermy
Article Evaluation: The article is relatively structured with clear titles and subtitles, maintaining a neutral tone. However, certain sections, like "Physiological Polyspermy," take up significantly more space compared to "Compensable Polyspermy," which lacks depth. Additionally, the article is missing sufficient citations to support its claims. A more balanced distribution of information across sections, along with a more concise and organized presentation, would improve readability. It would also benefit from a more cohesive discussion that equally explores polyspermy from both macro and molecular perspectives rather than feeling scattered or uneven.
Sources: Polyspermy

Article title: Artificial Organ
Article Evaluation: The article maintains a neutral tone and is well-structured. I especially appreciated the breakdown of different organs and the detailed overview of various research methods and ongoing projects for each. However, I think it would benefit from a subsection addressing the challenges and limitations in this field, as well as highlighting frontier research, such as advancements in organoid technology. Additionally, incorporating a section on the history of artificial organs would provide valuable context and further enrich the article.
Sources: Artificial organ

Article title: Gain-of-function research
Article Evaluation: The article has been flagged and requires multiple edits, particularly in refining its tone and ensuring the verification of reliable sources. Additionally, the "Research" section would benefit from clearer subsections to improve readability and organization. There is also an unequal distribution of information across the page, which could be addressed by balancing content across sections for a more comprehensive and structured presentation.
Sources: Gain-of-function research