User:Babs subs/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?

Genetic engineering

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article to evaluate because it relates to the field of Biology and it seemed very interesting and in depth with plenty of sources and technical information.

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead paragraphs for the article are well written and concise with the information it seeks to display. The only issue from the start is that it seems a little lengthy as an introduction. Much of the information is great information but as an introduction seems a little too specific, primarily the subsection explanations seem a little too specific for the sake of an introduction going a little too deep into the specific topic weighing the entire introduction down a little. The introduction is able to categorize the major sections of the topic well, although some of the later headers are not mentioned in the article that may be important like the large section of medicine initially unintroduced, the overall ideas the article wishes to cover are explained in the intro. By checking and comparing many of the key topics brought up in the intro, it is safe to say that the information covered in the intro is eventually brought up again throughout the course of the article at least once. Personally I feel that it could be a little more concise by adding a little less specific detail but the diction used in the description of each topic is straightforward and overall clear cut.

As the article is a large section of new age biological research, the mentioning of the branching relations in the overall field and the the overall description of the history are important to understand the context of the information and therefore are a vital aspect of the article necessary for the coverage of the topic. There are many sources ranging from many years, but the key point is that there are even sources from 2022 and so it seems like the article is up to date. I do not believe there is any missing information, everything I read was comprehensive and flowed well. For the point addressing if the article is underrepresenting other regions, because genetic engineering is so new and intertwined with technology it would make sense for the information to come from more wealthy western countries where there is an ability to allocate time and money into the new field at the time.

The content of the article is written in a manner similar to science literature as it seeks to share a similar message about this topic in Biology. No claim seems too biased in one direction with an overall general and objective views on the matter, explaining any good or bad when it comes to the consequences of using and furthering the research of genetic engineering or any previous issues related to genetic engineering.

All the sources in the article have functioning links, at least the ones that I clicked, and they all seemed to link to proper websites involving some form of journal. The only input of better research would be newer research surrounding the topic, but other than that the past research seems to be rooted in some pretty strong science with accurate links. The sourcing seems to be thorough as well with many links and many sources only furthering the strength of the ideas presented in the article.

The article is written very well, I feel that it is plenty digestible with enough science aspects that anyone can takeaway something new from it, no matter the level of current understanding they may have. Often it feels long winded, but despite that it is still easy to consume and understand with clear separation in category and in sub-categories that make reading compartmentalized in a way to better absorb information. I also could not find any spelling mistakes or grammatical errors as well.

The images used for the article are good although I wish there were a few more diagram. There are great images for some of the points such as to demonstrate the effects that genetic engineering can have in the industrial and agricultural industries but not any great representation of how the genetic engineering is used for the medical field or any real depiction of any moral or ethical controversy potentially possible with the topic. All the images are well cited and well defined giving an understanding of what the picture displays while accrediting the original image. Most of the images do not take up much space and are large enough to be understood but the breeding diagram is a little to complex to be that small and it makes the article a little more confusing at first glance.

The talk page is another area of concern as it seem relatively barren in comparison to other talk pages especially of more niche topics. I would imagine such a large and new aspect of biological research and interests would have more conversations and updates with newer research or any other complaints but it seems almost empty with only a handful of comments and a few deletions. I believe that would be partially because the article is well rated and very well written and displayed giving not a lot of room for criticism and changes. However that does not address why there have not been as many updates as there should for new and come research. I also do not think it is a part of any WikiProjects.

Overall the article is very strong being well written and reliable in sourcing. This article is a benchmark for well created wiki articles with only a few exceptions being the display of better imagery of certain aspects like others mentioned to better understand the content as well as more active updating for newer and better research especially in the practically dead talk page. The article has many strengths including making difficult topics understandable, providing a very large umbrella coverage giving a comprehensive understanding of the topic, as well as following the Wiki standards to a tee. I would finally say that the article is very well-developed with almost nothing to improve other than the things listed above.