User:ColorOfSound92/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?

Genotyping

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because it was a stub, meaning it needed a lot of work. I found it on the genetics stub page, and I am very interested in genetics so I wanted to pick something from that stub page.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section:

The lead section is a bit disorganized and may not be written in form that everyone could understand. It does have an introductory sentence that states the article's topic. However, it is a bit of a run on sentence and is not very concise. There are no sections written yet, so the lead does not contain descriptions of each section. Since the lead is the only portion so far, it does contain information that is not present in the article.

Content:

Since this article does not contain any sections yet, I can't say anything about the quality or content of the sections. This means there is content missing. Some sections could include: the history and development of genotyping techniques; the uses of genotyping (such as medicinal, agriculture and phylogenetics); and explanations of the processes in genotyping.

Tone and Balance:

What the article does have, so far, is written from a neutral perspective.

Sources and References:

The article has two references so far, for the lead section. They are each referenced only once. For the rest of the sections, more references will be needed. Even for the lead section, there are a lot of claims about genotyping methods that don't appear to have a source and statements about the uses of genotyping that don't appear to have a source (or at least do not have the reference linked to the paragraph).

Organization and Writing Quality:

Currently, the lead section seems to be a bit disorganized and isn't very concise. It could use some cleaning up. I am hoping the other person working on this page responds to my message so that we can split the sections. I think this will help the other sections seem more organized and flow better.

Images and Media:

The article has no images currently, so it could definitely use some. With the broadness of this topic, I think there are many sections that there will be images for.

Talk:

I don't believe there is a Talk page discussion for this page right now.

Overall:

The article is a stub and needs a lot of work. Not just with the addition of more sections, but with addition of references, images and the organization of the page.