User:Eswanner/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: Acidithiobacillus
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because it is about an important environmental microbe. I would like to look at it to get some ideas about how to write a similar article for this class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead sentence provides taxonomic information but does not necessarily convey the noteworthiness of the topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, there is not a description of the content of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead includes reference to biometallurgy, which is discussed later, but one of the organisms introduced in the lead is not discussed later.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead includes details about specific species that should likely be included in a later section.

Lead evaluation
''The lead has some effective parts, but there is extraneous information that is too specific, i.e. about individual strains. The lead sentence should more effectively convey the noteworthiness of this genus.''

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The most recent references are from 2013 and 2014 so it could likely be updated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is not any discussion of the genetics of this organism and how key environmental functions are encoded at the genetic level. For instance, are functional genes on plasmids or in the main genome?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No.

Content evaluation
''The content of this article is good, but likely could be improved with more information about the genetic and functional characteristics of the organisms. The literature should also be reviewed for more recent findings may need to be included.''

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Generally, aside from a few problematic word choices.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There is one sentence that uses inappropriate language: "A. ferrooxidans has been proven as a potent leaching organism..." The word "proven" should be replaced with "demonstrated" or similar.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The article talks heavily about the role of this organism in bioleaching and biomining, but gives less coverage to its role in acid mine/rock drainage.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Tone and balance evaluation
''The tone could be improved by using weaker working in the context of presenting scientific findings. The word "prove" is problematic from the philosophical perspective on science, as hypotheses are supported or refuted, but not proven. There is an emphasis on biomining at the expense of discussing other aspects of these organisms.''

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No. There are several sections with no referencing.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Sources could be more comprehensive, which would likely also expand the coverage of the entire topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Latest source is from 2014, so they could be updated.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * This is not immediately obvious.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * There is one reference discussed that does not have a linked citation. One reference in the list is incomplete.

Sources and references evaluation
Some sources are incompletely cited, while other pieces of information are not attributed to sources.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * This article is generally concise.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no obvious errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

Organization evaluation
The article has a solid organizational structure, but this could be optimized (i.e. move specific information from the introduction to another section), and there could be additional coverage of other sources and viewpoints in the existing sections.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and media evaluation
''There are no images associated with this article. Perhaps an image of biomining or acid mine drainage could help here if a micrograph is not available.''

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 is only a brief conversation about a link.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It has a low-importance rating and is part of "Wikiproject: Microbiology".
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
There is a nice introduction line on the talk page that should be added to the introduction.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly 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: After reading this article I reorganized the information to flow better.