User:Devonwebb/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: (link)
 * Autoclave: (Autoclave)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen to evaluate this article because I am currently taking microbiology, and we have been learning about autoclaves in that class.

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?
 * Somewhat, some of the major sections are mentioned.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, some brief history is given in the lead and not mentioned anywhere else.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It's pretty concise, but contains some unnecessary details.

Lead evaluation
Overall the lead effectively introduced the topic of autoclaves, albeit with some overly specific details thrown in. The lead also contains some brief history of autoclaves, but isn't mentioned in greater detail, or at all, in the article. The lead contains brief introductions to most of the major sections, but also contains a brief introduction to history which isn't mentioned in the article and a brief introduction to industrial applications which is mentioned in a general section and could have it's own section.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * About half of the references are within the last 10 years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * History of autoclaves is missing, but nothing present in the article feels out of place.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * This article doesn't deal with an equity gap.

Content evaluation
The content of this article is relevant and up to date. The history of the topic is missing, but none of the topics are out of place. This article doesn't deal with any equity gaps as far as I can tell.

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 and balance of this article seems good. There is little mention of specific models or brands of autoclaves, almost completely focused on the general idea of autoclaving. The only exception is when the article mentions a test where UCR tested their research-grade autoclaves vs. medical-grade autoclaves, and found research-grade autoclaves to be for more energy and water efficient. The statistics were mentioned and that was it, nothing like "so UCR's autoclaves are the best."

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Not all of them, a lot of the sources are advertisements or articles on autoclave company websites.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I don't think so.
 * Are the sources current?
 * About half are 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?
 * Some, although one clearly doesn't link to the proper page., and one links to a google book that doesn't work.

Sources and references evaluation
This article has a lot of source problems, many of the recent sources are websites of autoclave manufacturers that don't source their content. Some of the sources lead to clearly incorrect pages or lead to pdfs which don't work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is relatively clear and easy to read, although it is not that concise.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I don't see any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article could use some better organization. Their could be a few more sections and the content in the sections could be organized better.

Organization evaluation
The article is relatively easy to read, and doesn't contain grammatical or spelling errors. There is some cleaning up that could be done in terms of conciseness and organization.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * When I click on Images, most have sources without working links
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I'm not sure, but some pictures mention the license they are under.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

Images and media evaluation
Overall their are a decent number of images, but many lack proper citations and I am unsure if they adhere to 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?
 * There are conversations about how the lead is not general enough, and how a caption to a image is incorrect. Also how industrial autoclaves, which is it's own separate article, should be merged into this article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is part of the microbiology and technology WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It mentions other use cases, where in class we only talked about how we would use it in lab.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page does a good job highlighting a lot of the articles issues, and has discussions on things to add. The Microbiology WikiProject has this article classified as C-class, high importance.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The articles overall status is C-class, the microbiology wikiproject has it as high importance.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The articles strengths are it's neutrality in content.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article could use better sources, specifically more neutral sources.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would assess the article as underdeveloped.

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: