User:Apachvall/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Microbiology (Micro)
 * I decided to evaluate this article because I am currently taking microbiology and I find it very interesting.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

Yes, the Lead does include an introductory sentence that displays the overall scientific discipline of microbiology. There is a Contents table that clearly explains the structure of the article and direct links to those sections on the article. All the information presented in the article is relevant to the article followed with external resource references. The Lead gives an overall thesis of the article structure and focus.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The content is relevant to the scientific discipline of Microbiology. The content is up to date and all the content does belong. With the current pandemic, a link to virology is available to get a better background of viruses. This is very interesting as I knew about historic microbiologists such as Antonie van Leeuwenhoek and Robert Hooke as the pioneers in microbiology, but even before them there was Avicenna, who was over 600 years before Leeuwenhoek and Hooke. It does show underrepresented microbiologist pioneers.


 * 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral and only states facts that can be further researched. Claims seem to be well balanced and give credit to pioneers in the discipline. The article does not seem to persuade the reader, only gives known facts about the disincline of microbiology.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

There sources to all claims and facts in the article and the sources give more insight into what specific topic in the article is being mentioned. I did check some link to sources, and they did work and where the correct source.


 * 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is clear, concise and easy to follow, the outline of the article is very manageable with quick links to subsections in the disciple of microbiology.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article uses good images that illustrate the pioneers of microbiology as well as laboratories and images of viruses and other microbes. The images are well captioned with links to other articles about the specific images.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The talks page is a little outdated in regard to talks among other editors, the most recent talk being done in September 2020 but before that being in 2019 and 2017. Other conversations include ideas of ways to better structure the article. Wikipedia talks about microbiology much like the way I have learned in school with the exception of the ancient microbiology pioneers who I had never heard of before.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

It’s a great article that explains the discipline of microbiology. The history behind the development and its pioneers, the advancements in research and the number of subsections for further reading are among the article’s strengths. In my opinion the article is well-developed.


 * 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?

Optional activity

 * 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: