User:Eelgersma/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: (Streptococcus bovis)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * - we just learned about it in class and I find it interesting as I saw lots of bloat in the feedlot that I worked at this summer. s. bovis is a bacteria that can contribute to bloat.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? it mentions that its equivalence with s. equinus has been contested but it doesn't expand on that
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? it is quite concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? yes. it discusses what the bacteria is, how it affects both humans and animals, and its classification
 * Is the content up-to-date? yes. it was last edited on April 20th
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't think so. it could maybe expand on the luminal effects.

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? the viewpoint that it may cause increased risk of having colorectal cancer is somewhat overrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no, it is quite neutral and all its claims have references

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? fairly (ranging from early 2000s to 2016)
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes it is quite concise and the paragraphs are not too long
 * 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. it has good headings and clear to understand topics

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

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 no recent conversations going on
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? this article is of interest to 3 wiki projects (microbiology, medicine, veterinary medicine)
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? it focuses more on the human side effects of the bacteria rather than the animal side. and it doesnt talk about how to distinguish it from other gram positive bacteria.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? the overall status is good
 * What are the article's strengths? concise and easy to read. the viewer can get a general understanding of the bacteria within a few minutes
 * How can the article be improved? add pictures
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? well developed.

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: