User:Mjbmicro/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Cyanobacteria

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose cyanobacteria because we are in a microbial ecology class and cyanobacteria are photosynthetic bacteria, which is something I find interesting.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The first sentence describes what cyanobacteria are but nothing about their importance or role.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead includes a list of characteristics but does not cover everything that will be discussed later in the article.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No, everything discussed in the lead article can be found later in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is fairly concise but it covers mainly the photosynthetic properties of cyanobacteria without introducing many other characteristics.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, every topic related to cyanobacteria is covered and there are no lingering questions about it that I have.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, from what I could tell there is some information from as recent as 2021.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, this article is pretty expansive and covers as much as I can think about in cyanobacteria.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, it covers photosynthetic bacteria which is fairly removed from representing any equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article states the facts and shows any sides that may be present to avoid bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there are not many controversial topics.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, the main facts were well represented and nothing significant was left out.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Not really, some new research was added in but it wasn't seen as controversial.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the article does not have a persuasive tone.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, most of the sources are from peer reviewed journal articles.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, many of the facts are cited with multiple papers.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, a majority of the papers are from 2015 or more recent.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * From what I can tell, yes. It looks like there are sources from researches across the globe.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Not from what I saw as most sources are already peer-reviewed articles.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, all the links I clicked on worked.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, I like the flow of the article and it covers everything.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, there are many sections and they are separate but flow well together.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, there are many pictures of cyanobacteria in the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Some of the images are well-captioned but some do not have much described about them.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, all the images have a link and source.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, there are many good, colorful images that follow the article well.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are some conversations about vocabulary used and the addition of more sources and pictures to some sections.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is a part of the wikiproject microbiology, algae, paleontology, and limnology and oceanography.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not discussed this in class yet.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I would say this is a good comprehensive article about cyanobacteria that covers the major facts.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article is well organized and thorough.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article could be more succinct on some topics where it gets kind of lengthy.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * This article looks like a lot of work was put into it as it is very thorough and in depth. I would say it is well-developed and isn't in need of any immediate edits.