User:Dana.dll023/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: Clostridium
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * Clostridium is a genus of bacteria of veterinary importance. The article is also rated as having high importance in the Veterinary medicine Wikiprojects.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No - mostly describes the morphology and where the bacteria are commonly found, which are not further discussed in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Detailed

Lead evaluation
The lead contains some important information but goes into a lot of detail about the morphology of the bacteria, which could be moved to a new section to make room for more important and interesting overview information. The lead also does not summarize what the rest of the article will contain.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Information could be added for the phylogeny, global distribution and relevance, and veterinary implications

Content evaluation
The content present is relevant, but mostly addresses implications for human health. More information could be added to give a more complete review of the topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of the article is neutral and does not try to present any specific viewpoints on the topic.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Somewhat
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
There are some references from the past 3 years, suggesting there have been some recent updates to the article, and a number of sources are older but are from reliable sources, such as textbooks, that would still be relevant. However, a majority of the sources are over 10 years old, so could use further updating and verifying.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * 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

Organization evaluation
The article is well organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
There is only one image in the article. More images could be added to show some of the things discussed in the overview for better understanding.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Some discussion about missing species, and the language used in the article (too advanced).
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? rated as C-class, part of Microbiology, Women's Health, Veterinary Medicine, and Medicine WikiProjects
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Haven't discussed in class yet

Talk page evaluation
Talk Page hasn't been used much recently, but there are some discussions about potentially incorrect facts and how to make the article more accessible to laypeople by simplifying the language used

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? level-5 vital article in biology and plants
 * What are the article's strengths? Gives a good overview of the morphology, species within the genus, and uses of the bacteria
 * How can the article be improved? Could add a separate section for morphology as it takes up most of the Lead section, could discuss the distribution of the bacteria globally and its relevance in different regions, could add more on the veterinary relevance, update references, confirm all species are listed, could add a section comparing Clostridium and Bacillus as it takes up a good portion of the overview section
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is underdeveloped

Overall evaluation
The article could use quite a bit of editing and updating to provide a better, more complete review of the genus

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: