User:Antonellaaliste/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Methanogen

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 page on Methanogen because my group and I are interested in working on an archaea page for our Wiki project. This article matters for students like me who want to learn more about microbes that we are currently learning about in class. I want to be able to rely on Wikipedia to give me accurate information. My preliminary impressions of this page is that it seems to have a good amount of information about this archaea, seems like the editor has good sources and I noticed that it even have the chemical reactions of this specific archaea. However, I do believe it is lacking pictures. I believe it would be beneficial for anyone who is wanting to learn more about this archaea.

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
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Lead Section


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes but I do believe it could introduce the archaea with a clearer definition than just a microorganism that produces methane.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes it does. It includes a brief description of everything in the contents list.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No, it does not.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, not too much information.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? All of it is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, it is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I know of.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No it does not have one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral? The article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are no claims that appear heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I believe that the “Comparative genomics and molecular signatures” section is more overrepresented than the other sections of this page. The “Physical Description” could use more information.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes, they are accurately described.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it does not.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes it does.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes it does.
 * Are the sources current? Some of them are older but they also consist of current sources.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) They all seem to be peer-reviewed articles.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they do work.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is well-written.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, it does not.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it is well-organized.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, it includes no images.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? It says it is a good article but could use a better start or more organization such as not containing any images or classification of the Methanogen. . They even mention that it needs more information on the species that are present in the human digestive system.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as High-Importance and it is included in the  WikiProject Microbiology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The article mentions a lot of topics we have discussed in class but it also includes a lot of information that we have not talked about in class, more in-depth information.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? I think it is a good article, it could just use more images and maybe elaborate more on certain topics.
 * What are the article's strengths? The strengths of this article is that it has a lot of useful, accurate information. It is unbiased. It has a good amount of information in order to get an overall grasp of the archaea.
 * How can the article be improved? It can include more information if you really want to learn the little, more specific details. I think some pictures would make the page more intriguing.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I believe that it is a good article but still a little underdeveloped. It could use a little bit more.