User:Prabal09/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?

Helicase#RNA helicases

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

Since the smallest component of all living organisms is a cell, it is necessary to understand the process of DNA replication. Helicases play an important role in unwinding the dsDNA at the origin of replication and turning it into ssDNA for further replication, repair and recombination. Although the Helicase article listed on Wikipedia runs in a chronological order but the articles referenced for the said information are not up to date.

Evaluate the article

The article in question mentions a clear and concise introductory sentence but with only the brief description of a few major sections like function. It lacks to mention different superfamilies and various disorders and diseases associated with helicase mutations in the lead section.

Although the content mentioned in the article is relevant to the topic but in some instances,(Bloom helicase) is not up to date. Most of the content listed dates back to late 1900's and early 2000's and is missing latest findings regarding Helicases. The article does weigh heavily around the function but barely touches the structural features of helicases.

Overall, the article has a very neutral tone and is concise which flows nicely from one topic to another with no grammatical errors.

Random audit of this article confirmed that majority of the information was sourced from functioning peer reviewed articles(research & review) for Helicases. But there were quite a few references listed from random websites ("Researchers solve mystery of how DNA strands separate". 2007-07-03. Retrieved 2007-07-05) and discontinued blogs ("Kevin Ahern's Biochemistry (BB 451/551) at Oregon State University").

The article does include images that help explain the content but the figure legends are not as through as it should be.

The talk page discussion includes active discussions about improvement of various sections such as helicase disorders and diseases, diagnostic measurement and methodologies & function of human DNA helicase. The article has been rated as C-class on quality scale which means there is a lot of room for improvement.

In my opinion, the article needs to be updated with information from peer reviewed sources and research from the last decade. The content listed in the article covers various topics important for understanding the role of Helicases but lacks thorough detailing.