User:Ggwarner/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Enterobacter cloacae

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Initially I chose this article because I think cloacae are interesting, but upon reading, I found out that this bacterium has some interesting industrial and clinical uses/significances.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section


 * The lead section does a good job at introducing the bacteria itself and information that could be useful to a reader.
 * The lead does not provide an adequate description of the article's major sections; it lacks industrial uses, safety, and genomics.
 * The lead does not include information not present in the article.


 * The lead is very concise.

Content


 * The article's content is relevant to the topic.
 * The article is up to date as far as I can tell. There are quite a few relevant and recent sources cited.
 * I don't think there is missing content in any significant way, but that is something I'd have to look into deeper with more research. For example, the genomics section could probably be elaborated upon.
 * Despite not dealing with a major equity gap in population or topic, I believe there is definitely more information that could be added to the article, especially about the body of research that has been performed.

Tone and Balance


 * The article is neutral.
 * There are no claims that are heavily biased.
 * I believe the section on genomics could be elaborated upon. As far as section-representation goes.
 * The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References


 * All facts are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * The sources are mostly thorough, especially for industrial use and clinical significance. However, as I stated earlier, the genomics section could potentially be better represented.
 * The sources included are current as far as I know. Some are older, but these are less relied on than the newer sources.
 * The sources are written by a relatively diverse spectrum of authors, including international writers.
 * As far as I know there aren't better sources available, but this is something I can continue to look into.
 * The links do work.

Organization and Writing Quality


 * The article is both concise and clear, making it easy to read.
 * I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * The article itself is well-organized despite being a little sparse in some sections.

Images and Media


 * The article includes one image that enhances the understanding of the topic.
 * The image is well captioned.
 * The image adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations as far as I understand.
 * The image is laid out with the page in a visually appealing way.

Talk Page Discussion


 * There are a few conversations that have gone on behind the scenes in the talk page. Two related to organization and plagiarism which have both been resolved, and one relating to the inclusion of implications in obesity of the species at hand.
 * The article is part of the WikiProjects for microbiology (mid-importance) and medicine (low-importance).
 * We haven't talked about this particular species in class.

Overall Impressions


 * Overall the article has a positive status, It's definitely a good start.
 * Strengths of this article are the discussion of industrial uses and clinical significance.
 * This article can be improved mostly by elaborating on the "genomics" section and making the lead a little more inclusive of the rest of the sections of the article.
 * As far as completeness goes, I think this article is mostly complete. Although it is not overtly lacking any major fields of significance, improvements can undoubtedly be made.