User:Dmancao7/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Streptococcus

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to look at the streptococcus article since it has some relevancy to what we have been currently studying in microbiology when considering microbes. I believe it has a high meaning because of the presence this bacteria has in humans and how it can cause certain health issues. Preliminary thoughts of seeing this article is that it is incredibly detailed already, providing plenty of information on the streptococcus genus and diving further into different groups of the bacteria that exist.

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.)

The lead section of the Streptococcus article provides a very brief yet informative summary of the overall contents of the article and also making the specific classification of the type of bacterium that it is. When considering just "streptococcus," there is a considerably higher amount of subgroups and classifications that it can be grouped into, and the main content sections goes further into the specifics of the different species of streptococcus bacteria. The information also provided in these main content sections appears to be current and relevant in order to provide readers with the necessary specifics to know about this bacterium. The overall tone of the article follows a neutral tone and does not seem to push any specific agendas or findings when considering streptococcus and covers all the bases when considering relevant information regarding streptococcus. There tends to be a slight imbalance, however, of how much it focuses on group classifications in comparison to other specifics of streptococcus, like the bacteriophages section which does not provide that much detail and could certainly be added to. All the contributors to the article did a fine job in citing all necessary information as well as using a variety of different resources on streptococcus, all which seem to be properly cited at the bottom of the article. Many of the studies that were cited, however, tend to be from articles written from the early 2000s to even earlier than that, so finding newer, up-to-date research could be something added as well. Besides those nit-picky shortcomings, it seems to be also well-written in that it gets straight to the point and gives the readers the information that they need, without any other unnecessary jargon present. The images present also aid in giving visual depictions of the bacterium as well as giving different phylogenetic histories of the various sub-species of streptococcus bacteria and include the necessary captions and cited properly. Looking at the talk section, there only appears to be one comment asking for clarification from almost 10 years ago, so certainly there can be more room for improvement in this article. Being that this article is considered B-class in nature by Wikipedia, it certainly has the necessary information to provide readers with what they need to know in regards to streptococcus, however, there can be much more added to balance out sections and new information to be found in order to update some of the information that is in the article that may be out of date.