User:Mantaj B/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Crocosphaera watsonii)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(This article is related to the course content of EOSC 475. Also, this wikipedia page seemed underdeveloped, so I am considering on working on it in the future.)

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

- There could be more information describing the major sections of the article

- The information could be written in a more concise manner

- Almost every sentence starts the same

Content:

- The content in this article is relevant to the topic as they speak about mechanisms, contributions, and limitations of the cyanobacteria

-The content can be made updated as some of the articles cited are more than 20 years old

- There is room for more research and addition to this article

Tone/Balance

- The tone/balance of the article is great (neutral), as I did not encounter any bias points, only different facts about the topic

Sources/References

- All the main points in the article are backed up by a citation that are related to the topic

- Some of the citations are old, there could be more current ones included

Organization/Writing Quality:

- This article is well written, however there is jargon so the reader needs to have some sort of a science background

- The article is organized well as there are different subheadings for main topics

Images/Media:

- Lacking images

Talk Page:

- There was good conversation on the talk page of the article

- The main concerns were the formatting of the citations, grammar/spelling, and missing wikipedia pages

- The article is apart of both WikiProject Algae and Microbiology

Overall:

- This was a well written article as it was clear and concise

- More research needs to be done

- Through the talk page it was discussed numerous times that the introduction to the article was the most impressive