User:Gpommier/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article
[edit]This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: Domain (biology)
I chose to evaluate this article because it's a fairly simple concept that I am already familiarized with. I also wanted to see what else I can learn. However, the article seems fairly short for the length I feel it could be. Maybe I will find that there is a lot missing that could be added to the article.
Lead
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Yes. The article begins by explaining what a domain is, and the subject you would use this terminology in.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Yes. The lead mentions every one of the headings listed in the "contents" box.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
It may be wise to have a brief description of the "tree of life" mentioned in the article, as it is mentioned in the lead. This could be helpful to people who are unfamiliar with biology and what exactly the tree of life includes.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
The lead is very concise and is as short as can be while being able to mention all of the contents of the article.
Lead evaluation
[edit]Overall, the lead seems concise, easy to digest, and informative. It effectively preludes the information in the article, and makes mentions (along with links to other Wiki articles) that can be helpful to readers looking to truly understand what a Domain is in biology.
- Guiding questions
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Yes, the article's content is relevant to the topic. The article strictly focuses on the biological definition of what a Domain is, it's creator, and previous alternatives to the three domain system.
- Is the content up-to-date?
Yes, the content is up to date. It was last updated only 2 weeks ago, and the oldest source is the paper that the three domain system itself was proposed by Woese, et al.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
There could be further information about the tree of life as more of an introduction, but it can be understandable that it is left out of the article, seeing as the link to the "tree of life" article is in this article already.
Content evaluation
[edit]Overall I think this article is surprisingly short, but quite informational. If Wiki editors wanted to go a different route, I would expect more about the history of the phylogeny of overall life leading up to the creation of the three domain system, and how it was reacted to by the science world. Although, something to remember is that this article is simply for the word "domain," and there is certainly a separate article for the three domain system that is likely more detailed.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral?
The article is very neutral - there is not much room for any bias for the definition of a biology term.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
There are no claims about the term domain that are biased. It is defined correctly and credited to the correct creator. It also mentions alternatives to the aforementioned three domain system.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
No there is not. Currently, the three domain system is the most widely accepted, and so there is adequate mention of this system and other, past alternative systems.
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
No, the only goal of the article is to inform and educate about the term "domain" in biology.
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]Overall, there is little possible way for the definition of a biological term to be anything but neutral, and so the article is strictly informative and factual. There is no "tone," and there is adequate mentions of what other systems there may be in the world of phylogeny.
Sources and References
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Yes - all the facts have a number to refer to in the references, which are all very reliable, scholarly sources. There is also links whose articles also are backed by scholarly sources.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
The sources are thorough, and include sources I would expect. Most importantly it contains the work of Woese himself, the work where he creates the word and what it means today.
- Are the sources current?
The sources are very current and mostly from the 2000s. There really hasn't been much refutation in the science world to what a domain is, so this is as recent of sources as one could expect.
- Check a few links. Do they work?
The links I clicked on for further information or sources do work.
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]I am glad to see that the sources are recent, include important works, and that the article seems to be updated frequently.
Organization
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
The article is very well written and even the least biologically - inclined reader would be able to understand what a domain is.
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
There are no grammatical or spelling errors.
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
The article is well broken down. Any of the major contents are well organized with headers and sub-headers.
Organization evaluation
[edit]The article is very well organized, and information is given in sequential order.
Images and Media
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
The article has great visuals to help understand what a domain is. There is an inverted pyramid starting with domain, helping to visualize what domains encompass, and that they are the primary, most broad term for the phylogeny of life. There are also visuals of branches when describing Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya.
- Are images well-captioned?
The images are well captioned and state what the visual is.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Yes, all images seem to adhere to Wiki's copyright regulations.
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
The images are laid out in a visually appealing way, and are where you would expect to find them. They are oriented different ways, and colorful.
Images and media evaluation
[edit]Overall the images were well chosen and placed in the article. They are mostly visual representation about where in the tree of phylogeny domain is, and the three domain system. They are mostly only different types of charts though, so maybe more variation could be made.
Checking the talk page
[edit]- Guiding questions
- What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
I can see conversations where some links were incorrect and have since been fixed. There is also discussion on whether to include other information, such as including "Empires," or a possible fourth domain. Interestingly, there is talk of whether this article should be merged with the page for the three domain system.
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
I can see apparently this article is rated "C class," meaning there is either a lot of irrelevant information, or there is a lot of missing information. This is apart of the WikiProject Biology.
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
It doesn't really - we just discussed an older article written by Woese in 1977, and his hypothesizing leading up to the proposition of the three domain system. This system is the one we use and is accepted.
Talk page evaluation
[edit]There isn't all too much talk for this article, although I am not yet familiar with how often content is deleted from it or if it is kept indefinitely. There is good discussion about what else should be included in the article.
- Overall impressions
- Guiding questions
- What is the article's overall status?
This article has been rated as a level 4 vital article in Biology. It is a C-Class article rated at mid-importance.
- What are the article's strengths?
The article definitely already includes the key information necessary to understanding what a domain is.
- How can the article be improved?
As I suspected, it seems users of the WikiProject feel there is a lot of information missing from this article. There should probably be further details on Woese, the history behind the phylogeny, and maybe more about the tree of life.
- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
I think the article is well-developed, but again short. However, it seems like a waste to go into further detail on this page, when every important term already has a Wiki article about it that is easily clickable.
Overall evaluation
[edit]The article is concise and clear. For a page about a simple word - "domain" - I think it has most of the information it could ever need. Mostly, people will be looking into the three domain system anyway, rather than just the word "domain," so I personally think the article is good as it stands. I do wonder if the users in the talk page are right, and maybe this page should be merged with the three domain system page, since the word was created with the three domain system in mind anyways. Besides this, the images and sources checked out and were respectively well chosen and recent/reliable.