User:Carterrl/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: (link) Talk:Chlamydia (genus)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, there is not a description of the contents.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The species listed in the lead are listed on the side, but are not talked about in the actual body of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead is concise.

Lead evaluation
Overall, I'd say that this is an okay lead but it can be improved. The first paragraph of the lead is concise and describes the general idea. The second paragraph is not really described in the body although it is listed on the side of the page. There is not a description of the contents of the article in the lead.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? This content may be out of date. The most recent reference is from 2017, though the article was last edited August of 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? According to the talk page there is a quite a bit of information that can be added.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? The article is almost neutral, there is some negative tone in the phrasing of the article. Namely "no one bothered to name them"
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? the pathology is heavily mentioned in nearly all parts of the article. Because the bacteria are obligate intracellular parasites this is understandable.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it does not.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? There is likely new sources and information available for this article.
 * Are the sources current? The most recent source is from 2 years ago, which is old for microbiology.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Some of the content is disjointed, likely from being written by different authors. The grammar of the article is correct, but the flow of the sentences is jerky.
 * 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.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is a single picture. It does help enhance understanding.
 * Are images well-captioned? The caption describes the image, but also includes information that cannot be found in the actual article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are a few questions, and a suggestion for a complete rewrite.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This is a C Class article and is a part of 2 WikiProjects: WikiProject Microbiology	(Rated C-class, Mid-importance) WikiProject Medicine	(Rated C-class, Low-importance)
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The article is mostly focused on disease and not on the genus.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The overall status of the article is okay. The only recent edits have been from bot accounts and possible vandalism so I think that there are some updates that can be added.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article does contain the definition of the genus that was discussed in class, so it seems consistent with the content covered.
 * How can the article be improved? There could be a shift in focus from human pathology to general information about the genus. I think there are likely several new pieces of information that can be added. The borderline sassy comments could be more neutral.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think this is a work in progress. There is definitely more that can be added to the article.

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: