This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: Protein Dynamics
- This seems like an interesting topic that is briefly but nonetheless thouroughly explained in an article, and I feel like it could be a good example of what to do in my article.
- Guiding questions
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- It does, except the sentence that directly describes the article comes after a small introduction regarding what proteins are.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- It does not contain a brief description of the article's major sections, it is more concerned with introductin the general idea of protein dynamics. There is a table of contents, though.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- It does not, it is an overview.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- It is fairly concise, but it could be reworded slightly for clarity.
The lead is concise, does not contain information that is not already present in the article itself, and contains a sentence that describes the purpose of the article. However, this explanatory sentence is not at the beginning of the lead, and the lead does not contain a brief description of the article's major sections, which means that it could be improved slightly.
- Guiding questions
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes.
- Is the content up-to-date?
- It seems to be lacking recent citations, but overall is probably mostly up-to-date
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Nothing is missing from the content, and everything seems to belong there.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- It does not deal with any of these things, it is just about protein function.
The content of this article is overall good, there is nothing that does not belong, and there is nothing particularly important that seems to be missing. The content is all relevant to protein dynamics, and is not controversial or opinionated. However, the citations are a little old, and it might be good for the article to get updated with more recent data.
- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral?
- The article is neutral.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- There do not seem to be any heavily biased claims, no.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No.
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- It does no such thing.
The tone of this article is unbiased, informative, and not pushing for a specific point of view. The tone is good, and the article does not read like an editorial or an argumentative essay.
- Guiding questions
- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Mostly. There are several facts that do not have citations and need them.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- The sources seem to come from several different places and cover most of the available literature, except for the fact that it doesn't cite anything from later than 2011.
- Are the sources current?
- Debatable. Fairly current, yes, but more research might have come out.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- There are many different source authors, but I do not know if they are historically marginalized. There are women authors.
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- They do indeed work.
The article is missing some sources, and the sources themselves might need some updating, but most facts are backed up by citations and the citations themselves are varied enough to avoid favoring one author or conclusion. The links still work, which is good.
- Guiding questions
- Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- It is concise and easy to read, yes.
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- There are no obvious grammatical or spelling errors.
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- It is well-organized, the major points are covered without too much over-informing per subsection.
This is a well-organized article that has used its subheadings well, and is not needlessly wordy to get its point across. There are no glaring grammar or spelling errors, which also adds to its professional appearance.
- Guiding questions
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Yes
- Are images well-captioned?
- Extremely. They might even be a little too well captioned, they might want to put some of that into the article.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Yes
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- They're kind of lumped together, it might be good to somehow space them out.
The images used are well chosen, not breaking any rules against plaigarism, and well explained. However, it might be good to rearrange them to make the article more visually appealing and also make the captions a little less wordy. Some of the explanations under the pictures can fit into the article well.
- Guiding questions
- What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- They are discussing how to alter the article in order to bring it more up-to-date, and showing references to update the article with.
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- It is part of Wikiproject Biophysics, but that project is currently inactive. It hasn't been officially rated.
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- It talks a lot about using NMR to identify protein domains and movement, which we have not talked about.
The talk page is small, but there are good suggestions for how to update and expand the protein dynamics page. This article is part of Wikiproject Biophysics, but has not been rated yet. The talk page seems to be used mostly to suggest small additions such as the usage of NMR in observing protein dynamics, which we have not talked about in class.
- Guiding questions
- 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?
This seems like a pretty good article. It is not rated yet, so its status is unclear, but it is a detailed overview of protein dynamics that can help a beginner understand what is happening and help a professional learn something interesting. Strength-wise, I would have to say the subsections are well-organized and well named, and the author is good at saying things simply. The article could improve the quality of its citations, as well as making sure all facts recieve a citation, and it might be good to revamp it by looking at recent research to make sure it is still an accurate article. I would say the article is well-developed, but maybe needs a little bit of touching up.
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: Protein Dynamics
- This seems like an interesting topic that is briefly but nonetheless thouroughly explained in an article, and I feel like it could be a good example of what to do in my article.
- Guiding questions
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- It does, except the sentence that directly describes the article comes after a small introduction regarding what proteins are.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- It does not contain a brief description of the article's major sections, it is more concerned with introductin the general idea of protein dynamics. There is a table of contents, though.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- It does not, it is an overview.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- It is fairly concise, but it could be reworded slightly for clarity.
The lead is concise, does not contain information that is not already present in the article itself, and contains a sentence that describes the purpose of the article. However, this explanatory sentence is not at the beginning of the lead, and the lead does not contain a brief description of the article's major sections, which means that it could be improved slightly.
- Guiding questions
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes.
- Is the content up-to-date?
- It seems to be lacking recent citations, but overall is probably mostly up-to-date
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Nothing is missing from the content, and everything seems to belong there.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- It does not deal with any of these things, it is just about protein function.
The content of this article is overall good, there is nothing that does not belong, and there is nothing particularly important that seems to be missing. The content is all relevant to protein dynamics, and is not controversial or opinionated. However, the citations are a little old, and it might be good for the article to get updated with more recent data.
- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral?
- The article is neutral.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- There do not seem to be any heavily biased claims, no.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No.
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- It does no such thing.
The tone of this article is unbiased, informative, and not pushing for a specific point of view. The tone is good, and the article does not read like an editorial or an argumentative essay.
- Guiding questions
- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Mostly. There are several facts that do not have citations and need them.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- The sources seem to come from several different places and cover most of the available literature, except for the fact that it doesn't cite anything from later than 2011.
- Are the sources current?
- Debatable. Fairly current, yes, but more research might have come out.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- There are many different source authors, but I do not know if they are historically marginalized. There are women authors.
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- They do indeed work.
The article is missing some sources, and the sources themselves might need some updating, but most facts are backed up by citations and the citations themselves are varied enough to avoid favoring one author or conclusion. The links still work, which is good.
- Guiding questions
- Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- It is concise and easy to read, yes.
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- There are no obvious grammatical or spelling errors.
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- It is well-organized, the major points are covered without too much over-informing per subsection.
This is a well-organized article that has used its subheadings well, and is not needlessly wordy to get its point across. There are no glaring grammar or spelling errors, which also adds to its professional appearance.
- Guiding questions
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Yes
- Are images well-captioned?
- Extremely. They might even be a little too well captioned, they might want to put some of that into the article.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Yes
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- They're kind of lumped together, it might be good to somehow space them out.
The images used are well chosen, not breaking any rules against plaigarism, and well explained. However, it might be good to rearrange them to make the article more visually appealing and also make the captions a little less wordy. Some of the explanations under the pictures can fit into the article well.
- Guiding questions
- What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- They are discussing how to alter the article in order to bring it more up-to-date, and showing references to update the article with.
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- It is part of Wikiproject Biophysics, but that project is currently inactive. It hasn't been officially rated.
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- It talks a lot about using NMR to identify protein domains and movement, which we have not talked about.
The talk page is small, but there are good suggestions for how to update and expand the protein dynamics page. This article is part of Wikiproject Biophysics, but has not been rated yet. The talk page seems to be used mostly to suggest small additions such as the usage of NMR in observing protein dynamics, which we have not talked about in class.
- Guiding questions
- 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?
This seems like a pretty good article. It is not rated yet, so its status is unclear, but it is a detailed overview of protein dynamics that can help a beginner understand what is happening and help a professional learn something interesting. Strength-wise, I would have to say the subsections are well-organized and well named, and the author is good at saying things simply. The article could improve the quality of its citations, as well as making sure all facts recieve a citation, and it might be good to revamp it by looking at recent research to make sure it is still an accurate article. I would say the article is well-developed, but maybe needs a little bit of touching up.