User:Epicfroggz/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) -- Pyroccocus furiosus

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 Pyroccocus furiosus because I grow and study this archaea in my university research lab. It matters because it is key to my research project (and because it is unique!). My first impression is that it has quite a bit of information, but some sections are so small.

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.)

Leading section: The first sentence properly describes what the article is about. The lead does not really describe the sections below it. The lead does mention the archaea's aldehyde ferredoxin oxidoreductase enzymes but does not mention them further down in the article. The lead is concise.

Content: Yes, the content is relevant to the subject. The article is up to date as of 2014. The enzymes section appears to be missing information. The article does not mention any biased topics.

Tone and Balance: Yes, the article is neutral. There are no claims present. There are no viewpoints to be had, and it mentions many different types of research involving the archaea. There does not seem to be fringe viewpoints. It does not persuade the viewer about anything.

Sources and References: There are some paragraphs with no citations, but otherwise the information appears properly cited. The article is missing new research from 2014-present. There are a variety of authors in the sources. The sources appear to be from scientific journals and government sources (i.e. NASA). The links seem to work.

Organization: The article is clear and easy to read, and concisely describes research being done on the archaea. It does not appear to have grammatical errors. The article is properly broken down, but maybe too much, as some sections are so small.

Images and media: The article includes a painting of the archaea, but not a proper microscopy scan/picture of it, so it is not very helpful. The caption is to the point. The image seems to be the work of a user so I suppose it meets copyright regulations. The image is where it is supposed to be, it just needs more.

Talk page discussion: There are 3 unanswered comments on the talk page, and all are pretty old. The article has been rated as Start-Class and is part of the Microbiology WikiProject. The comments seem to be concerning the sources, not really about the addition of new information.

Overall status: The article is in a decent starting place, but severely outdated. It has good general information and some about research projects concerning the archaea, but these are outdated and do not address new developments in those projects or new projects. Plus, some sections are so small. Up-to-date information is needed, along with a proper picture of the archaea, not a user-made painting of it. The article is poorly developed.