User:Fungus enthusiast/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate the article

 * Name of article: Methanococcoides burtonii
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This article is about archaeon found in the environment that would be relevant to our class. This article can also show me what to expect when making my own later in the semester.

Lead
Guiding Questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it is very concise and short and the topic is clearly stated.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, there seems to be a description; however, it is very lengthy and seems to go into content better suited for different sections in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, quite a bit of the information in the lead is not addressed later in the article. The author seemed to use the lead as describing the organism in full then going into different details in the actual article. Most of the lead could have been placed in different sections, allowing the article to flow better and not start with heavy detail at the beginning.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is overly detailed. It goes into too many facts about the organism rather than giving an overview of the article itself.

Lead evaluation
''While the lead effectively describes the organism the article is about, it offers too much information in too great of detail. Much of the lead could be split into more specific sections.''

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * All of the refereneces are from before 2005, so there should be some updating if possible. There is a source in "Futher reading" that is from 2013, but it is not referenced in the article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The article might benefit from having a section that discusses the environmental roles this organism serves. It touches on it in the lead, but it is not discussed afterwards. There is also a lack of basic infromation about the organism outside of the lead that could give a better introduction instead of having the article jump right into complex topics.
 * 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 references should be reviewed and updated if possible. The content overall is good; however, there is an organizational issue and there should be more about the ecological and environmental roles M. burtonii have.''

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * This article seems to be fairly neutral; however, there might be a few sentences that are questionable in relation to scientific discovery.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * One sentence: "This has been a major evolutionary step in cold adaptation" without any sort of source attached. This could indicate some self biases instead of stating facts.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The article discusses the mechanisms and structures this organism has in great detail; however, leaves off relevant roles it plays in the environmental and ecologically.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Tone and balance evaluation
''Commentary on how important findings are do not need to be included in the paper. Also, there could be more balance in the information included to allow for a better grasp on the organism in its entirety (not just it mechanisms).''

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Almost all facts have a citation after and all the sources seem to be peer review papers. There is a fact, the last sentence of the lead, that is not referenced and likely should be.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources all focus on mechanism and genomics, just as the article did, so there could be more that include other relevant finding on the organism. There is a "further reading" section that is not referenced in the paper, but added at the end. That seems to include more information that could be referenced in the article, allowing it to be more comprehensive.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Latest source is from 2005, so there is a need for updating if possible.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * This is not obvious.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links I checked worked.

Sources and references evaluation
''There is only one noticable fact in the text that does not contain a citation. All of the included references seem to be cited correctly and work properly.''

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * This article is fairly lengthy in most section and uses a bit of jargon, making it difficult to read and completely understand.
 * 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?
 * It could be better. The lead is packed with information that could be split into multiple sections, making it easier for the reader to digest.

Organization evaluation
''The article could be organized better, specifically the lead. A majority of the specifics in the introduction could be in their own section and expanded upon. The rest of the article is well organized.''

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No.

Images and media evaluation
''There are no images or media included in this article. If there are no images of this organism or the mechanism it has, a picture of where it was found (Ace Lake, Antartica) could be included.''

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 post by InternetArchiveBot that edits a link. No actual conversation occurs.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is apart of the Wikiproject: Microbiology, has a low-importance rating, and is rated as a C-class.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * N/A, we have yet to discuss specific organisms in class.

Talk page evaluation
There is no quality converstations happening on the talk page.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It contains a lot of well thought out information about the organism at hand.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * There are some major organization issues that should be addressed as well as updates of the reference materials if at all possible. There is also a lot of jargon included in the article that might make it difficult for most readers to understand and follow along.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Well developed, but it could use some more information about ecological and environmental roles.

Overall evaluation
''This article was well researched and well thoughtout; however, there are some major organizational issues that could be addressed and more diverse content could be added to expand the topic. There also should be some updates to the reference list if possible.''