User:Rcwidner/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: Microbial metabolism
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I plan to focus my WikiEdu assignment this semester on bacterial metabolism.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. The lead sentence suggests that the article focuses on microbes and how these organisms acquire and transform chemicals.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No. The lead only vaguely suggests that there are different categories of microbial metabolism. However, the lead does not explicitly mention the major sections that are explored within the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No. All topics suggested in the lead are explored in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is fairly concise. However, the lead would benefit from a brief listing of the specific metabolic strategies that are explored in subsequent sections.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. All sections of the article detail methods of microbial metabolism, most of which are linked to other Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, the sections highlight how different metabolic strategies are used to distinguish different microbes, and how these metabolic strategies can be used by humans.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * It is hard to tell if the content is up-to-date. Many of the references date to the 1990s or earlier, which suggests that there could be more recent citations. However, the fact that an "older" source was cited does not mean that this source has become unreliable.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content is largely relevant. However, the section "Syntrophy" includes a brief discussion on free energy (G) values and changes, which are concepts that do not fit as appropriately within the article. Mentioning G distracts the reader from the main topic (i.e. metabolism). Furthermore, because there are no hyperlinks to Wikipedia articles that elaborate on G, the reader may be not only distracted, but also confused.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes. The article is neutral throughout.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No. There are no claims that seem to be biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No. This article is less about views and more about scientifically grounded observations.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No. The article is declarative, not persuasive.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes and no. Many of the facts are not backed up directly on this article page. However, many of the sections are extracted from a main article, in which references are frequently found. Nonetheless, I feel that the citations should carry forward into the new page. Otherwise, a reader may begin a series of article searching to find a citation, which may have not been provided after all.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes. The sources link the reader to various peer-reviewed journals.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Not really. Many of the sources date back to the 1990s or before. However, this observation comes from the sources that are explicitly listed on this article's page. The reader would have to explore to the main articles from which many of the sections are extracted to make a more reasonable assessment about how current the sources in the article are.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The writing is overall concise and clear. The quality of writing varies a bit, but this observation likely reflects the contributions from different users, as evidenced in the history page.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The article appears to have many spelling errors. Furthermore, there are many grammar errors, but these errors frequently center on the misuse/lacking of commas and/or differences between using "that" versus "which".
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. The article is broken into relevant topics, with additional breakdown points within these sections. All of these sections build into the major subsets, and ultimately the overall topic, of the article.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No. The only image is a direct paste from another article. Although this graphic helps a reader to understand the first introduction, it does not provide information that helps the reader understand the bigger details of the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The single graphic is decently captioned. The reader gains a basic understanding of its contents. However, the caption should mention that this graphic is a broad simplification, as the section alongside the graphic mentions multiple microbial strategies that are not depicted in the graphic.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes. Upon clicking, the image cites and links to the source.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes. The image is to the side of the main section.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The Talk history redirects the article to other WikiProjects. These conversations center more on acquiring help for writing and editing articles. There is only one conversation directly in the article, about a typo using chemical language. However, upon investigation the history tab, one can see that multiple editors have contributed to fixing scientific presentation and accuracy on the article, especially concerning chemical notation and terminology.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated as B-quality. The article is part of two projects: Molecular and Cell Biology, and Microbiology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This article provides basic terminology with only brief, if any, explanation. In sum, the article provides a very broad overview of many topics. In contrast, class goes into more detail at a slower pace, thereby providing greater depth in place of breadth.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is B-rated.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The strengths of the article include organization, concise language, and hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article could be improved by greater extrapolations on concepts when they are introduced in the article, more recent references that are directly cited at the bottom of the article, and improvements on basic grammar (e.g. comma usage).
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is underdeveloped. At the current state, the article provides a surface overview of many microbial metabolic strategies. However, the molecular mechanisms of these strategies are poorly, if at all, investigated.

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: