User:Thomasturner1/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Talk:Autoclave

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I have heard a lot about Autoclaves, but I actually have never seen one or know how it works. It matters because without it we could not perform experiments and keep things sterile. My first impression was that it was very scattered with its topics and had very random information at times.

Evaluate the article

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Very concise


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, but it is treated like a tangent a lot of the time or even open discussion.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Most of the citations are about 2009-2017 in age . I would consider it decent.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? No Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, at least no advertisements.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? N/A
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? N/A


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes for college level
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that stood out to me while reading it one time through
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is organized but also kind of scattered and a bit specific at the same time.

Images and Media

 * 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? Yes


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? They complained about the specificity of it and that broader of a take would be beneficial.
 * How is the article rated? C class. Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Microbiology articles and technology articles.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? N/A, the same

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? Good
 * What are the article's strengths? Good basic understanding can be learned.
 * How can the article be improved? Get into more specific applications and or models of the machinery that people could learn about because they are all very different.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say developed for a broad take on the subject but then underdeveloped for the more specific models that could be delved into.