User:Sabrina Mierswa/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: Comammox
 * I chose this article to evaluate because I thought the topic of converting ammonia into nitrite and then into nitrate. I am interestd in this topic due to my participation in the Fundamentals of Environmental Chemistry course.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead defines the article's content well. It defines a Comammox as "the name for an organism that can first convert ammonia into nitrite and then into nitrate by a process called nitrification." The lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections, only defining what the bacteria does. The lead mentions nitrifcation, but does not mention how it is related to the bacteria. The lead does not contain enough info to introduce the topic. It should contain more background info.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The article is not up to date as the last cited article was written in 2017. The article's content is relevant but does not have a lot of information. There is a lot of content that is missing including more info about more species of bacteria that fall within the category and a better description of what is included within the category. The content that is there can also be written in a way that is easier to understand.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral in its tone and just presents the info. There is not enough info to be heavily biased in one way or another. There is not enough info for a viewpoint or to persuade the reader.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There should be more sources and references. The facts are backed up for the most part, but some sentences are not cited. Most sentences also only have one reference, with only one sentence having two citations. The literature appears to be from reliable sources, but there are only five sources listed for the topic. The sources are also not current with the last being on 2017. All five links still work for the sources.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


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

Organization evaluation
The article is not clear, but it is concise as hardly anything is present on the topic. There are no grammatical or spelling erros. The article is not broken down into any sections and is just one paragraph that is very dense. This makes it hard to find the information wanted even within the paragraph and lacks any sort of transitions between the topics.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * 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 are no images presented in the article. Some images could be added showing the type of bacteria mentioned, Nitrospira inopinata. This would help to add a visual to the topic and make it a little easier to visualize.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
There are no conversations about this topic. The article is rated as Stub-class and low importance for all Wikiproject categories. It is part of four different Wikiprojects including molecular and cell biology, chemistry, Articles for creation, and Microbiology. We have not discussed the topic in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is way too short. It needs a significant amount of more information added to it as it does not throughly explain the topic. The article's strength is providing a general introduction to the topic. The areas that can be improved include providing more types of bacteria that fall within the category and also defining what makes the category different from other families of bacteria. The area presented can also be re-written to be more straightforward and easy to understand. The article is underdeveloped and poorly developed and the sources used will have to be read to add more information from them as not enough info is added from them to the article. The sources used are good, but more info needs to be extracted from it.

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: