User:Scienceislife22/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Name of article: Bacillus coagulans

Why have you chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because it is a bacterium that affects not only our environment, but also affects our digestive system from their role in our meals. This article also presents important information that can guide me in the development of my own microbe article for class. Also, I believe it interesting that this bacterium was first described in Iowa.

Lead

 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead sentence of this article conveys the topic concisely and clearly. This article is about the bacterium Bacillus coagulans and allows a brief description of how it came to be described.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, there is not a description of the content of the article within the lead section. Although there is a table of contents that provides to the grain detail of the following subsections on the page.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead states that it was hard to distinguish between Lactobacillaceae and Bacillaceae but does not give further information on what helped distinguish between both families later on.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise and has the right number of details to describe the bacterium in question.

Lead evaluation
''The lead has the most important information that details the description, classification, and original discovery of the bacterium. It could be more descriptive on what the following content for the article is to give readers a brief introduction of the information they can retrieve from the article.''

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The references range from 1915-2021. The content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content on the page, while it being short, presents important information on how we as humans interact with the bacteria, and how it is used to benefit our health but also how it marketed with in the products we use.
 * 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[edit]
The content in this article is concise, and easy to understand when it comes to its uses. However, it can be more descriptive and abundant with the information provided about its market. More information can be given based on the genetics if this bacterium and any other possible affects it can have in our flora and fauna.

Tone and Balance[edit]

 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * This article does not present any claims of being biased towards any particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The article can talk more about why it is not categorized as a lactic acid bacterium when it does produce it. It mentions it is because lactic acid bacteria do not produce spores like this bacterium does, but it does not mention any other factors as its debated categorization.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is well balanced and neutral when it is presenting its information to the reader. There is no biased perspective within the article that tries to persuade the reader into a particular point of view. It should present further findings when it comes to the marketing of the bacterium mentioned.

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Sources could be more comprehensive, which would likely also expand the coverage of the entire topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Latest source is from 2021, so the sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * This is not obvious.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * There first refence does not have a link which can possibly be due to it being published within a book in 1915, which has not yet been published in an online journal.

Sources and references evaluation
The majority of the information is source within the references, although one reference does not have a link. The marketing section could be more descriptive and more citations to be more specific on the information presented.

Organization

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * This article is generally concise.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no obvious grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

Organization evaluation
The article has a solid organizational structure, but this could be optimized (i.e. move specific information from the introduction to another section), and there could be additional coverage of other sources and viewpoints in the existing sections.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes. It has one image of the strain under the microscope.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The caption is concise and describes what is in the image.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

Images and media evaluation
The only image adhered to the article is a depiction of the bacterium in question and it is well caption and allows the reader of visual aid of what it looks like.

Checking the talk page

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The talk page has a few conversations on going about adding more information to the article. For example, one input was to add how using this bacterium as a probiotic can be beneficial to the intestine. However, this can also cause bias in the reader to see the importance to add it to the digestive tract. Another editor is claiming that the interpretation of the effects of the flora in the intestine can actually cause worse symptoms than benefits. Also, another editor has more information on how this bacterium is being marketed in different companies and what there uses are.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It has a mid-importance rating and is part of "Wikiproject: Microbiology".

Talk page evaluation
''The talk page presents a lot of information that can be taken as opinions and biased. However, by searching more in depth into the information in question, I believe that a lot of facts can be retrieved and added to the article.''

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The overall status of the article is a C-class, which indicates it can be further investigated and more information can be added into the article.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article is concise and to the point. It presents the basic information on the bacterium in question on how it was isolated and described. It also provides a visual aid to help connect the information with the topic at hand. The article is well structed as well.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * I believe that the subsections can be further investigated to add the proper information and more factual information on the marketing of this bacteria can also improve the quality of this article.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I believe that the article can be developed further, however it does present the basic information for a brief introduction to the bacterium.