User:Kaking1022/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: CRISPR gene editing
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. - I learned about CRISPR years ago and the topic has come up in my Biology of Cancer class in possibilities of using CRISPR as a cancer treatment. I wanted to see how far the technology has come since I last learned about it.
Lead
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Lead evaluation
[edit]The Lead includes a clear introductory sentence. Some of the components mentioned in the Lead are sections in the article. Most of the sections are not listed in the Lead, however. The Lead includes a paragraph that attempts to explain how CRISPR works but comes off as jargony and a bit confusing.
Content
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Content evaluation
[edit]The Delivery section is short compared to many of the others and could include more simplified explanations. The section on CRISPR and cancer is very small and has no new information as of 2017. The studies mentioned were only briefly summarized and no results were stated. Besides these shortcomings, the information and sections present were relevant. I think two main points that the article fails to address would be a general history tab regarding research with CRISPR, major breakthroughs with the technology and an up to date summary of the most current findings. Additionally, there is no section regarding the possible problems with it or examples of where it has gone wrong.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral?
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The article seems to take a neutral stance. Especially regarding the use of CRISPR to alter human embryos, the editors did a good job leaving out the politics of such a controversial topic. There does not appear to be any favor or persuasion toward a particular position.
Sources and References
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]I was able to find a few citations from 2019 and 2020. Some of these were related to cancer, although their citations were not references in the CRIPSR and cancer section. All links that I selected worked. Some of the references appear to be blog or media style posts rather than strictly scientific research.
Organization
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Organization evaluation
[edit]I felt that overall, some of the sections were overly complex and detailed or that the mechanisms were not explained as understandably as they could be. This caused some sections to be particularly hard to read. The overall breakdown of the sections seem to make sense in terms of the main points.
Images and Media
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Images and media evaluation
[edit]Some of the images are not sited. They are somewhat helpful, but only if you have somewhat of an understanding of cell biology already. The captions are mostly just a title with little description about what is going on in the mechanism within the image.
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?
- 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?
Talk page evaluation
[edit]CRISPR gene editing is part of 3 WikiProjects: Genetics, Molecular and Cell Biology, and Biology. It has been rated as B-class for each of these WikiProjects. One person mentioned that the article fails to mentions potential risks of CRISPR from last October 2019, so that still has yet to be added.
Overall impressions
[edit]- 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?
Overall evaluation
[edit]Overall I would say the article is a work in progress. There is a lot of development in certain areas, however, others are lacking in knowledge, clarity, or are missing alltogether. It is definitely a compilation of sources, but is by no means a complete reference to understanding the ins and outs of CRISPR. I think the Application section is well developed and the editors have simplified their language so that it can be better understood by the common person. As an improvement, I think other sections should try to do the same. It can be difficult to simplify a complex mechanism, however, I think there is value in even including a brief overview of how such system works and then elaborating on the details afterwards for anyone who is interested in more.
Optional activity
[edit]- Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback
with four tildes — ~~~~
- Link to feedback: