User:SnowEm/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Antibacterial soap

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because it falls under C-Class Microbiology articles, and antibacterial soaps made quite a bit of talk during the most recent global pandemic. Antibacterial soaps are used in many healthcare settings and may even contribute to the increasing number and occurrence of antibiotic resistant microorganisms. Whenever discussing antibacterial products, I think it's important that the public receives accurate information.

Evaluate the article
This article is about antibacterial soaps. The lead section of this article is quite short, and contains information pertaining to almost all of the article. The first sentence of the article mentions antibacterial soap, and serves as a very basic definition. The lead includes all but one of the topics contained in the article, and fails to include a mention of any of its history. All the information contained in this section of the article is incorporated later on in the article, which is useful, and is also very concise. The lead could be improved by including a more comprehensive definition as the first sentence of the article as well as including a mention of all of the main topics that will be included later on. The next section of the article is "History", but there is no mention of the history of antibacterial soap in the lead section. Much of the information in this article falls under the "Effectiveness" section. The "History" and "Ingredients" sections are quite short in comparison to the rest of the article, and seem to be missing a lot of information. The history is very brief, fails to include important dates in it's history, and could be much more comprehensive. The history appears to be very surface level. There are many types of antibacterial soaps, and the "Ingredients" section is the shortest section of the article composed of only two sentences. I believe they are lacking a lot of information that could be included. The ingredients that are included do appear are described as being "common", and comes across as an opinion of the author. The content does appear to be up to date, with the most recent information being cited from 2020. After looking, I believe that more information from the last few years could be included as well. The content of this article could be more balanced between the sections and include more details from proper sources.

Much of the information in this article falls under the "Effectiveness" section. The "History" and "Ingredients" sections are quite short in comparison to the rest of the article, and seem to be missing a lot of information. The history is very brief, fails to include important dates in it's history, and could be much more comprehensive. The history appears to be very surface level. There are many types of antibacterial soaps, and the "Ingredients" section is the shortest section of the article composed of only two sentences. I believe they are lacking a lot of information that could be included. The ingredients that are included do appear are described as being "common", and comes across as an opinion of the author. The content does appear to be up to date, with the most recent information being cited from 2020. After looking, I believe that more information from the last few years could be included as well. The content of this article could be more balanced between the sections and include more details from proper sources.

The article appears to have an opinionated tone. It heavily mentions the instances where antibacterial soaps have been proven to or appear to be ineffective. The article on the other hand however never includes any information about the instances this soap has been deemed effective. This leads the reader to believe that these soaps are ineffective. The entire effectiveness section reads like an argumentative essay. To improve, the other viewpoint needs to be addressed as well as taking a neutral tone. Rather than making opinionated statements, listing the facts would be more appropriate.

The references in this article date as far back as 2007, but primarily occur in the 2010's. There are only 10 sources listed, and more could be included from more recent research. Many of the resources come from news sources and non-peer reviewed articles. Better resources should be employed, especially from peer-reviewed research journals. This would help improve the validity of the information quoted in the article as well as help change the overall tone of the article to a more neutral position. The links are functional, and quotations and statements are cited, but would be better if they came from more substantiated sources.

The article is clear, concise, and easy to read. The section headings help the reader identify different aspects of information contained within the article and help direct them to specific information. I did not recognize any spelling or grammatical errors. The article is well organized, and includes information in a thoughtful way that directs the reader through the topics presented. The writing could sound and use more professional language to help improve the overall tone of the piece.

One image is included in the article to help provide a visual idea of what the soap looks like. It is laid out in an appeasing way, and includes a detailed caption. Additional images showing what the chemical composition of of the many antibacterial substances are may help the reader understand those structures better. The image also appears to follow the appropriate copyright regulations.

Individuals working on the talk page of this article are making appropriate questions and comments all targeted to help improve the validity of the article. There are no arguments, just polite suggestions made. Individuals communicate well on the topic, and check with each other prior to making changes to another editors work.

Overall, I believe that this article has lots of room for improvement. It appears to be very underdeveloped and could use additional information to help make a more comprehensive article. The article also appears to be very opinionated. The addition of new information from primarily peer-reviewed, research-based sources would help increase its neutrality. A more comprehensive history and ingredients section would also be beneficial. More research should be done to see if there are more main topics that should be included in the article as well. These actions should help increase the validity of the article overall.