User:Charley8801/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Bacterial soft rot

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it was vaguely of interest to me. It has potential to be an important matter because of its effects on crops. My initial impression of this article was that, it has good bones, but needs more information and needs to be properly edited for grammar, links, and citations.

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.)

Lead Section


 * The introductory sentence of this article mentions bacterial species that are only talked about in a minority of the article. It may be more wise to define bacterial soft rot in the first sentence and then list some potential species that cause it.
 * There isn't much description regarding the other major sections of the article in the lead. Adding more information and introducing, briefly, other major sections in the article would make it better.
 * There isn't enough information given about the origins of the disease.

Content


 * The content is relevant to the topic.
 * The information seems somewhat out-of-date. There isn't a lot of information present in the article, but a quick google search about the topic brings up a variety of different articles, a lot of which are not cited or included in the article. To me, this reads as the article being out-of-date.
 * The article does not go into much detail about how the rot happens. Whether this is because the information is not available, or because the author just didn't include it, is unclear.

Tone and Balance


 * The article, for the most part, is neutral in its delivery of the information.
 * There are a couple of points that make it seem as if bacterial soft rot is more of an issue that it actually is.

Sources and References


 * There were a few points of the article that stated that the disease causes greater loss than other diseases. This point was not cited, it's unclear whether any of the sources support this claim because of this.
 * A lot of facts in this article are not cited.
 * The sources and references are mainly from 2011 and earlier, they are not up-to-date.
 * The sources and references are fairly diverse, even with how few there are.
 * Most of the sources in the article are from journals, studies, etc. However, there are better sources available with regards to time, meaning they were published more recently.
 * Only a few of the links in the references section go somewhere.

Organization and Writing Quality


 * The article is decently well-written, it's relatively easy to read, and to-the-point, for the most part.
 * There are definitely some grammatical and spelling errors. The sentence structure of some parts is difficult to read and understand.
 * Some of the links to other Wikipedia pages are entirely wrong.
 * The organization of the article could use a bit of revision, but it's fine for the most part.

Images and Media


 * There is only one image in the article, it is relevant to the topic/content.
 * The image is right near the lead section, so it's easy to see and get an idea of the content.
 * The image is clear, concise, and to the point, with regards to its caption.
 * As far as I know, the image follows the copyright regulations.

Talk Page Discussion


 * There is no talk page discussion for this article.
 * The article is only C-class, it's not well-developed or discussed.
 * It does seem to be a part of a couple of different WikiProjects.

Overall Impressions


 * This article is underdeveloped.
 * It has decent information and structure, it would be a good starting place for further development.
 * The article needs more information/media, better sources/references and citations, and better grammar/sentence structure.