User:AAMB579/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Evolution of the human oral microbiome.

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.)

I chose this article because it is an interesting topic to me and I do not know much about the how the human oral microbiome evolved. This is an important article because the human oral microbiome is one of the most studied aspects of the human microbiome and its increased understanding has crucial implications for overall human health and disease. My initial impression of the article was a positive one and I learnt new information as I read through it.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The information included in the article was relevant to the topic and did not include any irrelevant or distracting information. There was definitely information missing in terms of how changes in human diet and hygiene overtime are correlated with changes in the structure and function of the oral microbiome or how geography maybe a factor in the composition of the oral microbiome. A preliminary google scholar search also revealed that several new studies have covered this topic and have uncovered new information in terms of how phylogeny of host versus ecological factors influenced the formation and evolution of the oral microbiome. In terms of equity gaps the article made no mention of how dietary differences based on cultural/societal differences may have impacted the evolution of the oral microbiome. Another improvement that could be made is the inclusion of other bacterial species that have changed over time and have established impacts on health and disease. Information on phylogenetic correlations underlying the formation the human oral microbiome as it relates to other animals would also be important to understand the evolutionary perspective. The article had a neutral tone and did not appear biased. The source links in the article worked and seemed supportive of the included information. Most of the sources were from diverse primary peer reviewed literature articles which is good. The talk section did not have many comments. There was only one comment/review appreciating the article and making suggestions. The article is rated C-class and is part of four wiki projects including dentistry, microbiology, medicine and physiology.