User:Aspillutla/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?

Histone deacetylase

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose it because we learned about histone deacetylase in class and histone deacetylase removes acetyl groups on histones. My first impression of the article was that it was concisely written.

Evaluate the article

Lead section: The lead section is concisely written and states what exactly histone deacetylase does in its first sentence. It also states why histone deacetylase is important and does not include any information not in the article.

Content: The content is concisely written and does not use unnecessary information. It does not explain many of the terms used within the article, prompting the reader to click the links to said terms for their Wikipedia articles or to look up the terms in a dictionary. The content also includes various aspects of HDAC and its relevancy in fields such as neurodegenerative diseases. The content seems up to date as some of the references listed in the References section are from as recently as 2020.

Tone and Balance: The tone of the article is scientific, though it does not appear as detailed as, say, a scientific article published in a journal. There is no persuasive language in the article and the wording represents a neutral point of view on the subject.

Sources and References: The sources listed are all peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals. The sources are current and reflect the history and evolution of the subject. The source links I tested do work.

Organization and writing quality: The organization is clear and separates the topic into relevant sections for ease of consumption. These sections are short and describe only what is relevant to that particular section. The wording is concise and easy to understand for someone without a background in the subject, though much of the terminology is left undefined.

Images and Media: The images used do reflect the subject matter as they show either the structure of HDAC or other relevant aspects of HDAC. The images are well-captioned. The images are laid out in a way that does not interfere with the reading.

Talk page discussion: The talk page was most recently used in 2016 to provide a source for an additional topic regarding HDAC- a review on histone acetylation and brain function. Prior to that, the talk page was used to alert users of a change in the first paragraph to improve "clarity," as the poster described. Prior to that, the talk page was used in 2006 to reflect a poster's lack of understanding on some of the content in the article. According to what's written, the original author of the content the poster was confused about responded, taking responsibility for the confusion. The page is part of a WikiProject titled "WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology Articles."

Overall impressions: The article was strong and did not take on more than it needed to in terms of content included. All material presented was relevant to histone deacetylase. I believe the sections were chosen well and I like that the sentences weren't very wordy. One drawback is that many of the terms used in relation to histone deacetylate were not briefly defined in the article. I would evaluate the article as well-developed, but lacking in some aspects.