User:Ngeer20/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Thermosphaera

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it was something that pertains to this class that I do not already know much about, yet I would be interested in learning more about.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The introductory sentence is very concise but may not be necessarily clear because of that.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, there are details about where they can be found in the Lead that is not further discussed in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think it is concise, but the sentence about it being found specifically in yellowstone may be a bit too detailed.

Lead evaluation
I think the lead is overall effective, but some small changes could make it more clear.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * I am thinking that the information is likely not very updated, but the lack of references makes it hard to know for sure.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think that one specific area that is missing that is most evident without knowing much about this specific genus is more details on their metabolism or other functional genes of interest. How do they interact with their environment?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No.

Content evaluation
I think the content of this article could be greatly improved with additional information on metabolism, functional genes, how these microbes interact with their environment, additional specific sites that they have been found, noting specific species, etc. There are a lot of things that I am guessing are missing from 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?
 * I don't think any one thing was overrepresented in this article, and in terms of underrepresentation, I think it could be good to add additional information in all sections, as well as add additional sections for phylogenetics/evolution.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Tone and balance evaluation
I think that overall the tone of this article is neutral and appropriate. I think that the balance of the article could be improved by expanding on and adding additional information.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No. There is only 1 reference in this article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are not thorough, and I think after adding recent literature on the topic to the references could greatly improve the content in this article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The source is not current. (website was retrieved in 2007)
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No. There was only one source
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * There is one reference discussed that does not have a linked citation. One reference in the list is incomplete.

Sources and references evaluation
There is a lack of sourcing and references throughout the entirety of this article.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * This article is concise, but I think some thoughtful organizational choices could make it easier to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I noticed.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I think that for the content that is there, it is broken down well.

Organization evaluation
I think that overall the organization of the article is good, but a few changes to sentence structures and moving specifics from the Lead into their respective sections could make the article more reader friendly.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
''There is not an image associated with this article. I think that especially because there is a section for cell structure, a micrograph picture of what a specific species in this genus looks like could be beneficial.''

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 not any comments on the talk page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is a part of the microbiology WikiProject. The rating of this article is of low importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not talked about this specific microbe in class, but it is interesting that they use the term prokaryote in the Lead, which could be replaced by a better descriptive.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page could be utilized to improve this article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The status of this article is stub-class.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * I think the strengths of this article is the conciseness.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * I think the most impactful way that this article could be improved throughout by including references for the information that is already there and adding additional references and information for topics such as phylogeny or functional genes that may be important for this genus.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think that this article is poorly developed.

Overall evaluation
Overall I think that this article has a good start, but needs significant improvement in the citations and references as well as development of additional sections with current more information.