User:Thunderclaw2/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Thermophyte

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is a type of organism which I find very interesting but don't know a ton about yet. I was interested in checking out some current knowledge.

Lead section

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead sentence is a great short summary of the topic.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the lead discusses information that is not presented in more detail within the article.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * Yes, most of the lead information is not expanded upon in the rest of the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise, but the rest of the article is lacking.

Overall, the lead is a decent start to the article, but there is no real connection between the (minimal) article content and the lead.

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, but this content is very limited and does not reflect the topics brought up in the lead.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Somewhat; recent articles are cited but much information seems to be missing.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is much content missing, such as how/why an organism gets classified as a thermophyte, other examples of thermophytes, etc. There is no discussion of thermophytic algae, even though the lead states that they are the most common.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

Overall, the content of this article is quite lacking and would benefit from a more well-rounded approach to the topic. Only one example of a thermophyte is given, and there is no discussion of other examples/types of thermophytes, where they live, etc. More discussed references would be greatly beneficial.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the article neutral?
 * For the most part, although naming "Washington State" directly multiple times in the article suggests the author may be biased to this institution and was crediting it more than necessary.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The sentence, "The study at Washington State has led to the discovery of a way to use these relationships between fungi and plants to make crops more thermo-tolerant, allowing them to resist damage by heat.", is quite strongly worded and reads much more like the grandiose conclusion/claims made in the research paper itself and not something which is appropriate for an unbiased Wikipedia article to include.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There is only 1 real viewpoint which is represented at all, so many aspects of thermophytes is missing from the article.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, but it does attempt to paint the one study discussed (from Washington State) in a very positive and transformative light

Overall, the tone could benefit from more neutrality and more overall content would help the article not be so biased toward the one example/study.

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, many phrases lack references after making a claim, such as "The fungi typically dwells in the intracellular spaces between the plant's cells." and "Thermophytes are able to survive extreme temperatures as their cells contain an “unorganized nucleus”.", both of which would greatly benefit from references as these are claims which are both interesting and niche enough to definitely need to be backed up.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No, the sources are quite scant and focus on one specific thermophyte system.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Two somewhat recent sources were cited, but none from within the last year.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources appear to come from an array of authors/situations, but I cannot tell what types of authors wrote each article.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Some references do not contain enough information to tell where they are from/what type of source they are (e.g. "Algae"). Otherwise, a series of peer-reviewed papers were cited.  There were also references included which appear to not be available online, as I could not easily check these book sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * In general, yes besides the book sources.

Overall, the sources appear to be varied and the article is not dependent on only one reference, but one study is discussed much more than the other cited references, and overall more references in general and a replacement of some current references with those more easily accessible and current would be beneficial.

Organization and writing quality

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content in the article is in general well-written, although some areas begging for more information were not expanded upon and leave no real chance for the reader to easily gather more information required to understand the claim/point/topic.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Nothing major that I can see
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article could definitely use more sections and more content in general (as stated above), so as of right now the article seems pretty sad and unfinished.

Overall, the writing quality of this article is decent, but due to the lack of overall content, it does not seem to be well-organized and complete yet.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes; the two included images are somewhat redundant but offer helpful insight to the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, the captions are thorough and understandable.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The images do not have a cited reference, so if they were taken by the uploaders directly (as suggested), then they are fine. Otherwise, I would expect that they should have a proper citation/reference because otherwise it seems like they were just ripped from a different site.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, they are in relevant parts of the article and help break up the text in a nice way.

Overall, I'm not sure whether the images used are in compliance with Wikipedia's policy, but they do add to the article and are generally good inclusions.

Talk page discussion

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * No discussions have been undertaken on the talk page of this article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is a part of the WikiProject Algae within WikiProject Microbiology
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * N/A

The talk page offers no insight into how the article is being assessed for updates, changes, etc.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * So far, the article is in a very early state with some helpful information but would benefit greatly from more thorough research and discussion of the topic.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The one study discussed in length was well encapsulated
 * How can the article be improved?
 * As stated previously, this article could be greatly improved from the addition of more general information and organismal case studies.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * This article is quite underdeveloped.

Overall, I think this article is at a decent starting point, but much work needs to be done.