User:Anonymouslycool22/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

This article on gametes is fairly interesting, and with a background in science it became a focus to me. After reading through it, and taking notes on it, there was realization that it is missing out on great information about the history of gametes, and the sex determination. This article focuses on a big part of how evolution had taken place on haploid sex cells, and to improve it this article could be used to teach the younger viewers a simple lesson. My first impression of this article was it is decently written, and it has a hefty amount of information on certain parts of it. But from my first glance I realized that specific parts needed to be elaborated on, and there needs to be more information added on to specific topics.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section:

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, the leading sentence of the introduction does clearly describe the topic of gametes, and how they came about in the study of science.  

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.)

No, the lead paragraph does not briefly describe the articles major sections. The lead does not introduce any information that cannot be found further in the article. All the information in the lead can be found with an explanation.  

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead of the articles needs the information included to be broken down. The lead has the correct information but there is not enough emphasis on it, and it is easy to get lost in the way it is written. The information is not the problem, it is just missing a few explanations.  

Content:

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes, the article's content is relative to the topic. All of the information included can be related back to the study of gametes.

Is the content up-to-date?

Majority of the resources used were from the past 10 years of research, and some were from 15 years ago. But overall most of the information gathered is relatively up-to-date.  

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

There is some content missing from this article. There are forms of sex determination that could be further explained, there is some basic cell-to-cell information that could be elaborated on, and there is a big gap in history that is missing.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

I do not believe that this article deals with one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps. The study of gametes is well known in science, and it does have a lot of experiments conducted on it. So this information is greatly shared among the science community, and it is thoroughly expressed. The study of gametes is very well represented in the science world.  

Tone and Balance:

Is the article neutral?

This scientific article is very neutral.  

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

There are no claims in this article that appear heavily biased.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Yes, there are viewpoints that are overly represented. In this article there is a great elaboration on the subtopics of artificial gametes, and plants. But for the other subtopics that should be elaborated on there is just not enough information to be spared in the article.

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

I do not believe there are any fringe viewpoints described in this article.

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

This article does not attempt to persuade the reader in any favorable position. The article is very straightforward with its information.

Sources and References:

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

In the article some of the facts are not cited correctly, or do not have citations included. After looking through some of the sources it is concluded that they are beneficial to the article, and the ones that are cited improve the article.  

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

The sources included are a reflection of the available literature on the topic, and subtopics of gametes. They do thoroughly explain the topics. Although if there is an addition made to this article some sources will be updated.

Are the sources current?

As stated above, the majority of the sources are from the past 10 to 15 years of research done on gametes.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Yes, the sources are written by a diverse group of authors. A few of the sourced articles are written by scholar university press, and some of them come from medical journal articles. There are historically marginalized individuals included in these articles as well.

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.)

Yes, there are some sources that could be replaced by more beneficial peer-reviewed articles rather than website information. For the definition sources those could be critiqued, and cited by different sources rather than an online encyclopedia. A peer-reviewed article could do just as much benefit.  

Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, some of the sourced articles do work. A few of the sources require a purchase of a book, and some of the URLs have been discontinued. But this information can be recovered by new sources just as beneficial.  

Organizing and Writing Quality:

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

This article could use some critiquing to the way it is written. The leading paragraph could use some elaboration, and rephrasing. The subtopics in the article need more information, and elaboration to be understood thoroughly. Some parts of the article are quite hefty, and need to be lightened. But overall the information is well adapted, and just needs to be worked on.

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

The article does include some grammatical, and spelling errors. But it is nothing to be over the top about.

Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The article is broken down into good subtopics about gametes. The subtopics just need more information included in them.  

Images and Media:

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

The article only includes one image on gametes. I believe it could use a few more images based on the Wikipedia copyright regulations.  

Are images well-captioned?

The image does include a well-informed caption.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Yes, the image does adhere to the regulations.

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

The singular image is the first item to be seen in the article. I believe the image could be critiqued in its formatting.

Talk Page Discussion:

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

Behind the scenes of this article there is a lot of talk on how to critique the work, and how to rephrase the information pursued on the topic of gametes. It is not harsh criticism but it is beneficial help offered by the science community.  

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

This article is rated as part of the Start-Class content. It is included in the Molecular Biology, and the Animal Anatomy WikiProjects.  

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Wikipedia discusses the topic of gametes by jumping right into the information by explaining the definition, this then is elaborated into the subtopics of gametes. But the information explained in the subtopics is not elaborated on, and cut too short for anything to be comprehended. In a classroom this would be taught differently. First an introduction of what a gamete is would be explained, and then we would work into how a gamete is processed though the works of science, and how it came about. Once the concept of what a gamete is, and where it comes from the subtopics would then be tied into the information already explained.  

Overall Impression:

What is the article's overall status?

This article definitely needs some improvement on how it represents the topic of gametes.

What are the article's strengths?

The article does have some great subtopics, and some beneficial vocabulary but this information needs to be clearly elaborated on. The information included in the  article is also beneficial to the topic; it just needs to be rephrased.  

How can the article be improved?

The article can be improved by rephrasing the information, elaborating on specific subtopics, giving specific words a definition so they can be understood, the article needs a few visual representations for the viewers benefit, and lastly some of the citations needed to be redone, or completed.  

How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

This article is underdeveloped. It has a good source of information; it just needs to be critiqued, and refreshed with a new set of eyes.