User:Ciara.zarn/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: Staphylococcus aureus
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this article because it is a species of interest

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes it gives a brief overview of the bacteria and some of its main characteristics to introduce it to us.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes and there is a table of contents provided
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No I don't see anything missing.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is a concise overview of the bacterial species Staphylococcus aureus.

Lead evaluation
The lead is a concise overview of the bacterial species Staphylococcus aureus. In the first sentence, there is a description of the species main characteristics and a table of contents follows to go through the rest of the topics covered in the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes from my evaluation the content seems up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No I don't see any content that may be missing or paragraphs that don't fit with the article.

Content evaluation
I feel that this articles content is relevant to the topic as the article starts with a brief history of S. aureus and then continues to highlight important discussion topics of this species including its role in health, disease and its virulence factors and what those look like. Also, includes information on diagnosis, treatment and research that is happening in the field. The content also seems to be up to date. However, I feel that there is one section that talks about S. aureus's role in health that seems short and could probably be expanded on.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
This article has a neutral tone in that it is just describing facts about the species S.aureus. I did not read any claims that are heavily biased. For example the article describes S.aureus as both a good and bad bacteria with no inference to a view as the bacteria being bad or good. I feel that this article did a good job of describing the facts about this bacteria without any tone as to whether the author felt that they think this bacteria is bad or good.

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?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
This article is has good secondary sources. With a bacteria as researched as S.aureus it will be really hard to reflect all of the available literature on the topic but I fell that they did a good job sourcing important topics. I clicked on a few of the links and they worked.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is well organized and each section it is clear what aspect of S.aureus they are talking about and in a language that is easy to understand. There are no grammatical errors that I was able to see.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The images that they have chosen add to the article and are in a visually appealing way. The images comply with the copyright regulations.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The talk page had conversations about biofilm, virulence, and MRSA and how these topics can be implemented in the article. This article is rated as a B-class and has mid importance in the medicine and microbiology WikiProjects.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
Overall, I feel that this is a good and fairly complete article that gives a broad overview of Staphylococcus aureus. It is written with a good neutral tone and it is written in a language that most people will be able to read and understand the key characteristics of S. aureus.

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: