User:Catcog/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate the article

 * Name of article: Metagenomics
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I choose to evaluate this article because it is related to microbial ecology without being an overly complex topic.

Lead
Guiding questions


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it briefly defines what metagenomics means.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, it briefly describes the history of metagenomics while also touching on different methods of sequencing.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * It does not appear to contain information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is very concise, having three very brief paragraphs for each subtopic discussed in the article.

Lead evaluation

''The lead includes a brief description of broad topics discussed in the article. It also goes into more detail with mentioning methods of sequencing. There appears to be nothing mentioned in the lead that is not later covered in the remainder of the article.''

Content
Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all of the content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, the most recent reference is from 2022.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There does not appear to be missing content or out of place content.
 * 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

All of the content is relevant and up to date.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article discusses the topic in a neutral manner, only discussing the facts without trying to persuade the reader.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There doesn't seem to be any biased comments.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There aren't any viewpoints that are severely underrepresented, but I think the topic of Data Analysis could be expanded.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Yes.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the article is unbiased.

Tone and balance evaluation

''The article is written in a neutral tone without trying to persuade the reader in favor of a certain position. However, the topic of Data Analysis could be discussed more.''

Sources and References
Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * It appears that every subject discussed has a reference.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the most recent source is from 2022.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, there are many sources with many diverse authors.
 * 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.)
 * All of the sources appear to be credible.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links seem to work correctly.

Sources and references evaluation

''The article has more than 100 sources listed at the end. Each subject discussed in the article appear to have a from a published research paper.''

Organization
Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It seems to being very clear and concise.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Throughout the article, there does not seem to be any grammatical errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is very well organized with a new section for each new subject brough up. It makes referencing certain parts of the article easy to do.

Organization evaluation

''The whole article is concise without any grammatical errors. Different subjects are separated within their own sections of the article.''

Images and Media
Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article does contain images, but it could have more to better enhance the reader's understanding.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, each image has a thorough explanation.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, they do not disrupt the reader's ability to understand and follow along with the article.

Images and media evaluation

''The article should contain more images, especially diagrams, to better help the reader understand the topic. However, each image in the article is relevant with a thorough explanation.''

Checking the talk page
Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Most people are discussing other relevant topics to add to the article. There was also a discussion about removing mentions of a topic because it was biased towards a certain organization.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated as a "good article" by Wikipedia and is of interest to several WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia goes into much more detail about this subject than what we discussed in class, but still seems to cover all of the main ideas.

Talk page evaluation

This talk page shows Wikipedia users working together to improve the article to add more detail and make it less biased.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Wikipedia rated this article as a "good article".
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It goes into great detail without making it confusing with extensive technical jargon.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Overall, I think more detail can be added to each topic discussed.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is very well-developed.