User:Ipersia/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: (link) Astro microbiology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I was scrolling through the list and not many things stood out to me. But I love space and microbiology is awesome, so the mixing of the two really got my interest in it.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the first sentence is a description/definition of astromicrobiology.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it provides kind of an outline about what is going to be talked about in what order.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Very concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, everything is relevant to understanding the aspects of astromicrobiology.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not necessarily, just more information about Mars regarding astromicrobiology compared to Titan or Europa or Enceladus. But this is due to active research being focused on Mars.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? See above, but no.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not at all.

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? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? They do work, but the Talk page is dead.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Very concise and clear.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Nope.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it is.

Images and Media
Guiding questions:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, but I would like to see more.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, some could use more description as it is a scientific wiki page.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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 conversations on the talk page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is C class and it is apart of the WIki Astronomy Project and Wiki Microbiology Project.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? There is no discussion on the talk page to compare anything to.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * What is the article's overall status? It is fairly short which usually means it needs more work, but if there were more discoveries or more success in astromicrobiology then the topic would be more detailed.
 * What are the article's strengths? Very clear and easy to read.
 * How can the article be improved? More pictures describing some of the experimentation methods used outside of Earth.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is well developed but I just wish there was more about the field to put on the wiki page.

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: