User:AndrewRow1/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Antibacterial soap

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.)

This article was chosen because soap should already be antibacterial. If soap is antibacterial what is the purpose of specifically antibacterial soap, Is it better at killing bacteria?

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.)

Lead section


 * Yes it introduces what antibacterial soap is and that there is debate on whether it is beneficial or not.
 * The lead does cover information that can be found in the article but does not give a description of the sections.
 * The lead section is a little small and could use some more detains about the sections within the article.

Content


 * The content does talk about the topic
 * Certain parts of the page seem to current but others could do with a refresh.
 * It could use a little more balance in talking about what difference in the soap is.
 * It does not deal with an equality gap.

Tone and Balance


 * It is close to neutral, but could use more information towards why antibacterial soap was made.
 * The article give more information towards why we shouldn't use antibacterial soap.

Sources and Referances


 * Some of the sources come from reliable sources like the FDA and peer reviewed journals. But some are just pulled from magazines and stuff.
 * The referances are used through out the article.
 * The refereances were written by a diverse set of authors and the links work and lead you to those pages.

Organization and Writing Quality


 * The writing is pretty clear and easy to understand.
 * There were no spelling or grammar errors that I saw.
 * I feel the article could be broken down to include at least one more subsection.

Images and Media


 * There is only one image which is properly captioned and follows the Wikipedia guide lines.
 * Image is of a empty bottle of soap I would change it for a full bottle.

Talk page discussion


 * There is not much discussion on the talk page just some people saying what could be improved.
 * It is part of two wikiprojects: microbiology and pharmacology.
 * The talk page seems under used compared to how it has been taught.

Overall impressions


 * The page could use more information on both antibacterial soap and on the research that has been shown not to support it.
 * Some of the references could be replaced with better ones.
 * The overall rating of this article is a C
 * Overall I would saw that is article is underdeveloped.