User:TVenvisci/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

 * Name of article: Cyanobacteria

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

 * I chose this article because my specific area of interest is the study of excess nutrients in small scale, freshwater ecosystems. Cyanobacteria is an important environmental microbe that will become more common because of these excess nutrients and climate change. It is a toxic algae and is important for any environmental scientist to understand.

Lead
Guiding Questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead sentence provides taxonomic information but does not tell the reader why it is important.
 * 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.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead does a good job of covering topics that are explicitly presented later in the articles.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is detailed when it comes to how cyanobacteria function. This information could have been replaced with why they are important and unique.

Lead Evaluation

''The lead seems to be focused on the functionality of Cyanobacteria, but does a good job of starting points broad and narrowing it down. There is little mention of the importance of this topic.''

Content
Guiding Questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The most recent references are from 2022 so yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is very limited content on how cyanobacteria and climate change are related and the health risks associated.
 * 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

''The content that is covered it thorough, yet there are some topics that could drastically improve this article if included. The references are current and there are plenty of sources.''

Tone and Balance
Guiding Questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There does not seem to be, a lot of the content is focused around the history and functions of cyanobacteria.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The article does not address how cyanobacteria has become a more prominent health hazard for dogs in recent years. There is one sentence that mentions the danger, but considering how big of an issue this has become, I would expect more (especially considering it will only get worse due to climate change).
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Tone and Balance Evaluation

''I think the tone and balance is a strength of this article. It is written objectively and intentionally with the sole purpose of informing.''

Sources and References
Guiding Questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are a few facts without references but for the most part, references are good.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Sources are focused on history and composition/functionality of cyanobacteria - overall narrow scope.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Latest source is from 2022.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * This is not immediately obvious.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Sources and References Evaluation

Most facts are properly cited - sources and references are also a strong suit of this article.

Organization
Guiding Questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * This article is clear and easy to read. However, it feels like sections at the end were added when the information could have been integrated in already existing sections.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no obvious errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is broken down into a lot of sections, almost too many. It seems that some information in the larger sections, such as "Ecology," would better fit into other smaller sections.

Organization Evaluation

''This article could have been organized more consistently - there is a range of length among paragraphs. This makes it feel as if sections were added on at the end when the information could have been integrated in other sections.''

Images and Media
Guiding Questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Images in the "Morphology" section could be laid out better.

Images and Media Evaluation

The images included are useful and appropriate.

Checking the Talk Page
Guiding Questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are quite a bit of topics covered on the Talk page. There are a few conversations about referencing cyanobacteria as Blue Green Algae - which is something that initially struck me as odd that it wasn't explicitly mentioned in the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It has a high-importance rating in WikiProject Microbiology, WikiProject Palaeontology, and WikiProject Limnology and Ocreanography, and top-importance in WikiProject Algae.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We haven't explicitly talked about Cyanobacteria in class, although when/if we do, I assume it would be in a manner similar to this article, with more emphasis on the implications of the microbe.

Talk Page Evaluation

The talk page is very thorough and has been active for over 10 years - with the most recent comment being from this year.

Overall Impressions
Guiding Questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Overall, I think that this article is well-written.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article gives plenty of background on Cyanobacteria and uses a range of sources.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article is lacking when it comes to the implications of Cyanobacteria in the environment.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * This article, despite it's thoroughness of implications, falls more towards being well-developed than underdeveloped or poorly developed. The background information isn't bad - it's a great introduction to Cyanobacteria.

Overall Evaluation

Overall, I think this is a very useful article that I would feel comfortable using as a source, yet it has limited applicability due to its lack of covering implications of the microbe.