User:Whomtao/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]Molecular cloning is a very important topic in this class. In order to prepare DNA for cloning, it first has to be cut by restriction enzymes. When the DNA is cut, we can either have a blunt end (no overhang) or a sticky end (overhang on one or both ends). Sticky and blunt ends have different effects on cloning efficiency depending on base compatibility. As such, I chose to evaluate this article as it is important to understand the distinction between the two. From first impression, I think the article does a good job at introducing the topic of blunt and sticky ends. There are many diagrams that help show the two possibilities and the writing is concise and easy to understand. However, it seems the articles lacks citations for verification, so it may be hard to find how reliable all the information is.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead Section
The introductory sentence introduces us to the concept of different DNA end types, but does not give us an overview of what separates sticky/blunt ends. The major sections of the article (variations in double-stranded molecules and discovery) are lightly hinted at, but the major section of strength is not. However, the lead is very concise and contains most of the necessary information to learn what what is needed to know.
Content
All of the content in the article is relevant to the main topic. The content does seem up to date, as the references are as recent as 2016. The article is not missing any key information, as it clearly goes over what differentiates blunt and sticky ends in good detail, with diagrams included. In addition, the article also adds context for the discovery of DNA ends(albeit briefly.) The article does not deal with Wikipedia equity gaps.
Tone and Balance
The article is written extremely neutral. It just presents the necessary facts and does not add any opinion and positions of the author. There are no fringe or minority viewpoints. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader to believe anything, nor is their anything in the topic that has two different sides/arguments about.
Sources and References
Not all facts are supported by a reliable secondary source. Particularly, the section titled "Variations in double-stranded molecules" does not have any references when describing blunt ends, overhangs and sticky ends, and frayed ends. It only hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles. Simpler facts, like the discovery of sticky ends and the stability/strength of the ends are cited by current sources that are thorough (i.e. Journal article). However, the first citation, which is for a description about the function of restriction enzymes, seems to be a completely unrelated book (possibly a typo?). The sources do not include historically marginalized individuals. All links are functioning. Clear improvements can be made in the first two citations. The first, being completely incorrect, and the second being an archived website. These can be replaced by sections from official molecular genetics textbooks or journal articles.
Organization and Writing Quality
The article is clearly well written. It is easy to understand and flows nicely. However, the overall organization of the article needs some improvements. The sections titled "Discovery" and "Strength" are only one to two sentences long. These can be reallocated to other parts. The main focus of the article should be on what sticky and blunt ends are. This extra information could be reorganized to improve ease of reading.
Images and Media
The images and diagrams of base pairs strongly enhance the quality of the article. Images are organized nicely within the paragraphs of each section. They each adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
Talk Page Discussion
The only messages on the talk page are from the same user, saying that he is looking for someone knowledgeable on the subject to include more definitions and examples. The way Wikipedia discusses this topic is very similar to how we talked about it in class (general descriptions of the topic and its relevancy).
Overall Impressions
The article needs some improvements, particularly in its organization and sources. Its current quality scale rating is Start-Class. It has clear strengths: the general content of the article is well written and accurate and each of the diagrams enhance the reading experience. However, some necessary improvements are needed. The article needs more citations and the removal of some current ones. Due to the lack of organization and quality citations, I would say the article is underdeveloped and needs improvement.