User:Rieboom/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Diazotroph

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I'm interested in the role that microbes play in nitrogen fixation in the environment.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the first sentence identifies what diazotrophs are and what their importance is in the environment.
 * 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?
 * Information in the lead is discussed in the article, however, it provides detailed information instead of an overview of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is brief but the second half provides information that is overly detailed.

Lead Evaluation

The Lead has a good introductory sentence and is concise, however, there are too many details about two specific systems.

Content


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the article presents the etymology of "diazotroph", types of free-living and symbiotic diazotrophs, their cultivation, and their application in the form of biofertilizer.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * No, a majority of there are some references within the last 10 years, but a majority of the references are more than 10 years old.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All content appears to belong.
 * 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
The content includes a thorough and concise presentation of diazotrophs' functions and diversity, but could be updated by referencing some more recent sources.

Tone and Balance


 * 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?
 * Equal weight is given to the different types of diazotrophs and their different systems.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of this article is neutral and it gives equal weight in content to the various types of diazotrophs.

Sources and References


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The facts in the article are well cited throughout with the exception of a paragraph in the application section that states ancient uses of rhizobia.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources referenced are thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most references are older than ten years and might not be current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Uncertain, but sources are published by an array of publishers.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Several sources don't have links, but links that I checked work.

Sources and references evaluation
''Content in the article us well cited save one paragraph of statements. Some citations are missing links.''

Organization


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is well organized and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are several grammatical and spelling errors in the Application and Importance sections.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

Organization evaluation
The outline of the article flows well and is easy to read, however, there are several grammatical and spelling errors in the second half of the article that distract from the content of the article.

Images and Media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Only one image is included in the application section that presents a plant that is symbiotic with rhizobia bacteria. No images are included to depict diazotrophs or their systems.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The caption of the one image included does not relate the image to the article and fails to identify its significance.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Image is in the Creative Commons.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

Images and media evaluation[edit]
''More media might be helpful, such as a graphic illustrating nitrogen fixation. The captioning on the one image included might be improved to better relate the image to diazotroph's symbiotic relationship with certain plants.''

Talk Page


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * In the Deletion request section there is discussion of the accuracy of a statement. There is also discussion of an unclear sentence.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated as a Start-class and Mid-importance. It is part of "Wikiproject: Microbiology".
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not discussed these microbes in depth in class.

Talk page evaluation[edit]
This article is rated as a Start-class and has some discussion surrounding the accuracy of a fact and also surrounding the wording of a statement.

Overall Impressions


 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The strengths of this article are its clear organization and thorough but concise and balanced content.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article might improved by replacing some possibly outdated sources with more recent sources. The Talk Page suggests that at least a few statements should be reworded for clarity or reconsidered in terms of accuracy. More images and/or graphics might facilitate greater understanding of the topic.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * This article is underdeveloped. It has many strengths but needs some updates.