User:Vandelay Industries Biologist/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

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.)

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Evaluate an article

 * Name of article: Microbial Art


 * I chose this article because the content encapsulates my two interests of art and microbiology.

Lead

 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes the article is lead in my a broad enough topic sentence to introduce the subject.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, there is no mention of the following sections of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * All information in the lead is discussed later in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is fairly broad on the subject, however microbial art is a broad subject.

Lead evaluation
Overall the lead is broad enough for the subject of microbial art, yet it does not introduce any of the following content matter in the article.

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all content is related to the field of microbial art.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * A majority of the sources are from the mid 2010s so there could be some updating.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The history of making art with microbes is only briefly touched on in this article. This is an opportunity for further development.
 * 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
There is content that could be added to better describe the history of microbial art, but all of the necessary information is present.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the article is informative not persuasive.

Tone and balance evaluation
''The tone of the article is purely objective. The is only facts about what microbial art is and how it is created and used. There is no room for opinion when describing this subject matter.''

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes the sources are thorough, the main information sources are from articles published in the Science Journal and Smithsonian.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are relatively current, a majority of them are from the mid 2010s.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The subject matter of microbial art is not a societal divisive topic, so therefore authors of source material are based solely off the quality of information presented.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
''The sources used to formulate this article are from reputable sites and institutions. I would give this article high marks for quality sources.''

Organization

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is organized in a way that effectively conveys all the necessary information.

Organization evaluation
''The article gives background information about microbial art and it also describes how it is created. The organization is logical and accurately shows all information pertaining to the subject.''

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, since the article is on microbial art it gives visual examples of creations.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Each image is captioned and includes links to information about the image.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, sources are given along with a description.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The chosen images are great examples of microbial art to give the reader an idea of what microbial art could look like.

Images and media evaluation
''The images add greatly to the article's content because microbial art is a visual subject. Therefore, images are needed to be able to show the reader what the art can look like. I think the images included are great examples of the subject matter.''

Checking the talk page

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is very limited conversation going on. Only referencing an addition of a hyper link to the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is apart of the VisualProjects and Microbiology WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not discussed this particular topic in class.

Talk page evaluation
''The talk page is sparse, not much conversation at all. There is only one fairly long comment about changing one hyperlink.''

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article was last edited in March of this year.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The articles structure and imagery are its strengths, both are important in educating the reader about the subject.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * I would add more about the history of microbial art and how it relates to diatom art of the victorian era.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * For an article discussing microbial art, the article is complete. There is not any more information that absolutely needs to be covered by the article.

Overall evaluation
''All the necessary information about Microbial Art is presented in this article. The sources are strong and the structure is effective and well organized.''