User:Owenwilborn/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?

Mature messenger RNA

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

Mature mRNA is important in eukaryotic cells because mature mRNA does not contain any introns and only contains exons, the part of the genetic code that is translated to form proteins^[1]. This article is important and is rated as Mid-Importance by WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology^[2]. However, despite the importance, it is currently a Stub-Class article and is severely lacking many important components^[2].

Evaluate the article

Lead Section

The lead section is short and is lacking important information about the topic. Overall score 3/10.

The first lead sentence accurately describes the topic.
The lead section is only two sentences and does not contain an overview of the articles major sections or any organization.
The lead section does contain information not present elsewhere in the article.
The lead section is lacking in detail and depth.

Content

The content section only briefly describes how pre-mRNA becomes mature mRNA and is lacking organization and detail. Overall score 2/10.

The content is relevant to the topic.
The content is not up-to-date. It is missing common regulators, a full description of pre-mRNA processing into mature mRNA, and significance and applications of the process. It lacks an explanation of the importance between pre-mRNA before the introns are removed and mature mRNA after intron removal.

Tone and Balance

The writing is in a natural point of view and not basis. Overall score 9/10.

Sources and References

No sources are cited anywhere in the whole article. Overall score 0/10.

Organization and Writing

There is no organization and it is hard to follow the article. Overall score 2/10.

The article does not contain any headings or sub-headings.
Organization is severely lacking.
Grammatical errors are present.

Images and Media

No images or media is present.

Talk Page Discussion

Nothing is present in the talk page.

Overall Impressions

The article is severely lacking in many important components and can be greatly improved upon. Overall score 3/10.

The overall status is a Stub-Class.
The article's only strengths are the accurate leading first sentence and balance/scientific tone.
The article can be improved upon by adding organization, and detail in mRNA processing, regulation, and medical applications^[3].
The article is poorly developed. A well-developed article will have headings and paragraphs for each section mentioned above.

References

^ "intron / introns | Learn Science at Scitable". www.nature.com. Retrieved 2021-10-06.
^ ^a ^b "Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology", Wikipedia, 2021-04-18, retrieved 2021-10-05
^ "RNA Splicing | Learn Science at Scitable". www.nature.com. Retrieved 2021-10-06.

[1] "intron / introns | Learn Science at Scitable". www.nature.com. Retrieved 2021-10-06.

[:0-2] "Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology", Wikipedia, 2021-04-18, retrieved 2021-10-05

[3] "RNA Splicing | Learn Science at Scitable". www.nature.com. Retrieved 2021-10-06.

[1]

[2]

[3]