User:Schracksm/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: Azotobacter chroococcum
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because I am interested in learning more about how Azotobacter chroococcum can be used in agriculture to help with nitrogen fixing, and I feel like this article could be added upon as there is not very much information on Azotobacter chroococcum.

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 is short; however, the Lead talks more about the discoverer of Azotobacter chroococcum than the bacteria itself.
 * The Lead includes some description of the major sections, but is no information in the Lead about the Uses of the bacteria.
 * There is information on the inventor which is talked about only in the Lead.
 * The Lead is overall concise, except for the extra detail on the discoverer.

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's content is relevant to the topic.
 * It doesn't appear to be up-to-date as the newest citation is from 2013.
 * There is no picture of the bacteria, information on recent studies and applications, information on its discovery, and needs more information on the nitrogen fixing process.

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

 * Article is neutral.
 * There are no biased claims.
 * There are underrepresented viewpoints on additional uses besides for agriculture.
 * There is no attempt to persuade a reader in favor of one position or away from another.

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

 * All facts are backed up.
 * The sources are not thorough as there is more information on Azotobacter chroococcum now.
 * Sources are not current.
 * Links work.

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

 * Article is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * There are some grammatical errors
 * The article is well-organized.

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

 * No images included.

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 is no conversations going on.


 * This article is part of the Microbiology WikiProject. It is rated as stub-class on quality and of low importance.

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

 * The articles overall status is that the article is outdated/incomplete and needs some updates made.
 * The article's strengths are that it has sections and seems to follow good Wikipedia Page form. overall.
 * This article needs pictures, information on new studies and uses of the bacteria, more information on the discovery of A. chroococcum, and more information on the process this bacteria uses for nitrogen fixing.
 * This article is underdeveloped.

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: