User:Jreynolds 0129/Evaluate an Article

Bacteriophage MS2 Article Evaluation
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Bacteriophage MS2
 * Bacteriophages are interesting because they can help scientists learn more about how DNA and RNA from an outside source alter genetic information. For this reason, this is the article I would like to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
The lead is effective. It concisely describes the content that will be discussed in the article without being overbearing with detail. The major sections of the article are briefly mentioned, and all of the information is accurate and found elsewhere in the article. This is a very good lead.

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? Content is sufficient

Content evaluation
The content of the article is relevant to the topic. All of the information is up-to-date, and the major subcategories of the bacteriophage are discussed. Its discovery, history, structure, effects, and applications are all discussed in the article. There is good and sufficient content for this article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance of the article follows the Wikipedia guidelines well. The article is strictly informative, and there are not persuasive comments. No bias is represented, and viewpoints are sufficiently represented. This article has very good tone and balance.

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? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The references are all reliable, and all appear to be secondary sources. The sources are thorough, and they are fairly current. One or two of the sources were published over 10 years ago, but the information has not changed. Additionally, the links work. The sources and references are well done.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


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

Organization evaluation
The article is well organized. Grammar is good. The article is concise, but it does provide sufficient information for the topic. The major points are all discussed.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
The images for this article are appropriate. The choice of imagery was good, and all images were well-captioned. They are visually appealing. Images also appear to adhere to Wikipedia copyright regulations.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Content/Information changes
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is apart of 3 WikiProjects
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Strictly informative

Talk page evaluation
The talk page was last updated in 2018. Most of the conversation is about changing content and faulty information. It is apart of 3 WikiProjects, and it only discusses changes to the facts of the material.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Good
 * What are the article's strengths? Very informative
 * How can the article be improved? More applications
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Sufficiently developed

Overall evaluation
This is a good article. It is very informative, and it is very concise. However, it would be nice to see more content in the Applications section of the article. Overall, this is a sufficiently developed article.

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: