User:Biochem2024/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article to evaluate because the majority of the laboratory experiments that were performed in this course required the use of assays. It matters because assays serve as a method to quantify and qualify proteins and enzymes that are being worked with. My preliminary impression of the article was that it was clear and thorough.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Overall the lead section is concise and well-written. The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. Also, it briefly describes the major sections of the article and does not include any information that is not present within the article.
The article addresses content that is both relevant to the topic and up-to-date. It discusses the general steps in performing assays, the types of assays available in science, as well as the quality extracted from employing such a technique.
The article is written in a neutral tone that does not bias any specific position nor attempt any persuasion of the reader.
The facts in the article are backed up by reliable secondary sources of information that are thorough and current. They are relatively good sources each with a link that works.
The article is well-written in that it is concise, clear, and relatively easy to read. It is free of any grammatical or spelling errors and is well-organized in sections that reflect the major points of the topic that were briefly covered in the lead section.
The article does not feature any images. This is one area that the article can improve in as images could provide visual representations of what assays look like and the tools that encompass them.
The Talk page of the article focuses on thoroughly defining the topic so that it is both clear and exhaustive and the need for a few additional references. It is rated of Mid-importance in both the Chemistry and Pharmacology projects' important scales.
The article has an overall good status. It is neutral in tone and cites several sources in sections that utilize the work of others—there are some necessary citations that must be referenced as already indicated on the article page itself. In addition, the lead section is clear and relatively concise considering how broad of a topic assay is.