User:Colinoneill1/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: (Environmental biotechnology)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because I am interested in the topic of environmental biotechnology and how it affects the world.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead of this article does describe the main sections of the article. It is also very concise only having valuable information and not repeating itself at all. It briefly describes each of the points that it later describes in more detail.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

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
I find this article to be neutrally bias. This article is a summery of the overall idea of environmental biotechnology. This includes its uses and fields it undergoes. I find this article to represent the viewpoints fairly well, except the article definitely focuses more heavily on its significance towards industrial biotechnology than it does with its significance with agriculture. I don't find any persuasion at all in this article.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
This article has a few reliable sources that it cited. They all do reflect the written information and are all current. All the sources come from authors who are in the field of environmental biotechnology and the links to sources were working and brought me to the scientists pages.

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
This article is well written. It is very concise, clear, and other than the more advanced terminology, easy to read and understand. I only noticed one grammatical error in the lead of the article other than that it is a very well made article. It is also broken-down into sections that are clear and only include information based on the section.

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
This article doesn't have an images.

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
Within the talk page the main discussion is from someone wo edited the page. They describe the main edits they did including one of the major edits. Then they simply asked someone to review their work.

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
I find this article to be very well made, and concise. This article does a good job at organizing and presenting it's information. Other than a few small grammatical errors, the only edit I would make would be to add more to the section on agriculture. Overall the article is fairly well-developed. I would only consider the agricultural section to be under-devolved, while the rest of the article has a good amount of information.

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: