User:Duznosti/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Anaerobic organism

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I have taken microbiology courses at my university so I am familiar with what an anaerobic organism from a microbiological point of view. My preliminary impression was that it could use a bit of work.

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.) This article was missing many citations, contained a few grammatical errors, and some of the terminology could be improved.

* Lead Section:* Good introductory sentence. There is no description of the article's major sections. The information seems relevant. I would say it is slightly over-detailed.

* Content:* The content appears relevant and up-to-date. I think the article is not very comprehensive and could use additional content (including images). To the best of my knowledge, I do not think this article is dealing with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. I believe science, and microbiology in particular, used to be underrepresented until the 'Age of Enlightenment.'

* Tone and Balance:* I think this article is written objectively in a neutral tone. I do not believe it has any of the flaws that are outlined in the 'Tone and Balance' section above.

* Sources and References:* Not all facts are backed up by sources. There appear to be some secondary sources in the reference list. Nearly half of the sources are from the last decade and over 3/4 of the sources are from the last two decades. The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. Many of these sources are already peer-reviewed and come from scientific/medical journals. There is even a source that comes from a textbook. I think this article could benefit from more sources, though. Some of the links work, but source #20's link does not.

* Organization and writing quality:* The article could be a bit more concise and some of the sections should be modified to produce a more logical flow of information. I did not notice any spelling errors; however, there are many grammatical errors present. The article is organized in appropriate sections. Some of the headers are mismatched (ie. font, bolding, underline).

* Images and Media:* The article features only two images. The first image seems somewhat irrelevant because its caption does not establish a relation to the article. The second image is great and complements the article nicely. Both images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Images are laid out in visually appealing and logical locations, but they are a bit small.

* Talk page discussion:* The conversations appear to be slightly off topic and out-dated. The most recent conversation appears to be from 13 July 2008. This article is rated as C-Class and is part of both WikiProject Microbiology and WikiProject Physiology. In my classes, we were more concentrated on how to culture and classify anaerobes whereas this article is focused on the history of these organisms and their metabolism.

* Overall impressions:* I think this article does a sub-satisfactory job explaining this group of organisms. I think this article is an undeveloped work in progress and could use more information, sources, and images. This article is strong in its explanation in the different types of anaerobes and their metabolic pathways.