User:Bradshawseth/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: Koch's postulates
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I am a biology major and I studied these postulates for my microbiology class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
Good intro that lets you know what the article will be about. Good background information.

Content

 * Guiding questions


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

Content evaluation
The article has good information on the topic, not too much and not too little.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
This article is not biased, it is based on a scientific method.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They could be better
 * Are the sources current? Not all
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Sources seem to be a little all over the place. Could be better, and could include more textbooks.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Some information would be worded better.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
Some of the wording can give the wrong idea, so the wording could be better.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No

Images and media evaluation
Some images do not have sources and all are on the right side of the page.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? They think some of the information is incorrect.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Rated C-class, and there are many WikiProjects it is a part of.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? N/a

Talk page evaluation
Most people on the talk page are not happy with the information in the article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? it is active
 * What are the article's strengths? The information chosen is good in relation to the topic
 * How can the article be improved? The wording and the facts
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Under developed.

Overall evaluation
Overall it is good, but it needs some reviewing and editing.

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: