User:AZhummingbird/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Metagenomics

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Metagenomics is a concept I'm somewhat familiar with. I have previous experience working with cancer genomics, so I assumed I would be able to follow most of the article. Metagenomics is pretty significant in identifying both which microbes are present in a particular microenvironment as well as tracking how these microbes may be affecting their host. There's a lot of promising research coming out that utilize metagenomics and to understand these new findings, a person would need to start with understanding metagenomics. The article itself definitely reads like a scientist wrote it. I don't think that a layperson could read it and have any idea what's going on. I do think that the links to Wikipedia articles on the various terms within the article are somewhat helpful for people with only a small or moderate amount of experience in related fields.

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

Evaluate the article
The "lead" seems to be this articles biggest failing. I don't read it and feel as though it clearly explained what metagenomics is or how it's used. I suspect that whoever wrote that section assumed that the first figure and its caption provided enough descriptive information on what metagenomics is. While it is a useful figure, there should still be an in text description; especially since a reader would need to scroll further down to even see the legend on the figure. A further definition of what an "environmental sample" is, as in the very first sentence, would be a good start. I feel that the lead should be the most accessible part of the article, and as it is, only a biologist would be able to understand it. The second paragraph in particular includes unnecessary technical details. The third paragraph suggests that metagenomics "has the potential to revolutionize understanding of the entire living world", but fails to explain why that would be. I think a substantial rework of the lead would most likely be appropriate.

I question the need for a "Data Analysis" section and whether it's an accurate tag for that section to begin with. It seems like each of the subsections underneath could be moved elsewhere and it could be abolished.

The article is fairly comprehensive and the technical level of most of it seems reasonable. In many cases, an attempt was made to explain major concepts. There are some areas where elaboration could be done to increase readability.

Most of the figures are quite good and very helpful.

There are a few obvious cases where additional information and citations have been requested that suggest work can still be done on 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.)