User:Baylou402/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Bacterial cellular morphologies

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 the topic was relevant to our course material. Then after reading into the article, still trying to decide if I wanted to choose it, the article was organized and clear, including the introduction/lead. Additionally, it provided a great images of the topic, strong citations, and I liked how it was clear and straight to the point with the topic.

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.)

Starting with the lead section, the beginning of this article provides a paragraph in the beginning that gives a great clear overview of the topic. Reading the first sentence does give the reader knowledge of what the article is about. There is no random information placed into this article. The lead is concise and to the point, not overly detailed. Now looking at the content, the author made a paragraph for each of the topics listed in the lead paragraph. This made sure all of the material was mentioned.The content appears to be up to date since its had critiques or edits in 2021. I think this article has the ability to improve and go into more detail if they wanted to add more information or expand. But I think I like the simplicity of this article, it makes it easier for me to read. Looking at the tone and balance, the article seems to be neutral with no biases. It states facts and backs it up with sources linked within the text. Each topic has its own paragraph (example: Coccus, bacillus, spiral, etc.) so none are talked about more than the other. I didn't feel like i was being persuaded when reading the article, it felt like I was just learning about facts and history of this topic. Looking at the sources and references, The facts that are in this article have more than one reliable citation. The citations at the bottom of the page also correspond with numbers that are throughout the article's sentences to show us where their sources came from. I'd say most of the sources are current. I clicked on some of them and one of them said the site can't be reached. But then there are reliable sources listed where the links do work, such as Princeton University, the American Society for Microbiology, and some other really reliable sources. So I'd say that one website where the link doesn't work (it makes my screen just load) I'd say it's either because of that website no longer working or because they provided the link in a different format. I liked how they had a peer reviewed article though. Looking at the organization and writing quality, I believe this article is concise and easy to understand. I didn't spot any grammatical errors, but I also need a bit more practice with grammar myself so it's possible I missed them. The article is broken down into the sections of the bacteria and archaea basic morphologies. Looking at the images and media, when clicking on an image it has a link to its source and it has a link that leads to another article that goes into more detail. All of the images are clear and easy to interpret. The images are laid in a visually appealing way. Looking at the talk page, it shows conversations about how they could go into more depth within this topic. It says the article is within the scope of Wikiproject Microbiology. It is rated as a start-class on the scale. The topic is more concise and to the point than some of the topics we go over in class, which have much more depth to them. Lastly, my overall impression of this article is that I thought it was easy to read and understand. The article has a strength of great citations and being clear and on topic. I think the article could be improved by going into depth on each topic more. But I also liked the simplicity of what they talked about and the evenness throughout the article. This article appears to be complete, it covered each topic listed in the lead paragraph.