User:Seashell5300/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: Bacteriophage (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I suppose it sounded interesting, I know a little bit about it and would like to know more.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead of this article does include necessary introductory information
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does include a brief description of the things it will discuss
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * All the information given in the lead is present in the remainder of the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead appears to be concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The content of the article is relevant to its topic
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The article appears to be up-to-date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Nothing that doesn't belong, always room to add more knowledge on the subject
 * There seems to be information lacking in the "Classification" section of this site
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I don't think this topic is underrepresented, but there is always room for improvement.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is neutral as it expresses facts and figures.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There is some wording that acknowledges its ability to harm its host with words like "infect" or "devour."
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?
 * The classification of Bacteriophage seems to be under represented
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Only that it is a virus and can be harmful to the body

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * It appears the facts are all backed up
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There is available literature on the topic
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some are current and others are not
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The spectrum of authors is diverse as well as its historically marginalized individuals
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * They do work

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is concise, clear, and fairly simple to read
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are few, but minimal, grammatical and spelling errors
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * There are several different sections to reflect the major points of the topic

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Images are attached beside the information
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * All images do include a text box stating what the reader should be looking at
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * They all appear to adhere to Wiki's copyright regulations
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * They are appealing and laid out well

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Some users wish to merge the Wikipedia site "Bacteriophage" with that of "photomicroscopy" as they seem to address similiar techniques.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is currently rated a C-class but has not yet been checked against the criteria for a B-class
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * They have a more in-depth conversation about all things concerning bacteriophage, compared to class where we would briefly discuss it.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Its status is of high-importance and a start-class on the project's quality scale
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's strengths is the vast amount of references allowed to the public, and its overall quality of work is respectable.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can be improved by adding a couple more informative pictures, completion of the "Classification" section, and a couple more scholarly eyes to bump its score to an A.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is slightly under-developed as there is still more work to be done before it can be labeled as complete.

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: