User:Wiskirchensl/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Denitrifying bacteria
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this article because of the amount of different traits this kind of bacteria has. I also work in the wastewater industry where I design secondary treatment to achieve BNR (biological nutrient removal). One of the main processes that go into achieving an BNR system is denitrification and nitrification. This is a topic that I am continuously starting to work with and I thought it would be a great idea to learn more additional information about bacteria that help get achieve this process.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * No I don't think so. The introductory sentence basically say how denitrifying bacteria is a diverse group of bacteria.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It mentions two out of the three major sections. It doesn't really mention anything about how denitrifying bacteria has anything to do with the environment which is the third point.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead mentions how this group of bacteria is very comparable to denitrifying fungi and archaea but never actually compares or mentions fungi or archaea in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Overall I think the Lead is concise.

Lead evaluation
Overall, I think the lead is concise but has information and terms in there that don't need to be there.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, very much so. It talks about how diverse this kind of bacteria is, the mechanism of it and how it plays a role in the environment and in the nitrogen cycle.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * For the most part, it is out of date. The number 1 reference is from 1997 so that is a little outdated but on top of that, the other references are from 2007 and one from 2015.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think more about how denitrifying bacteria plays a role in the nitrogen cycle would be beneficial.

Content evaluation
Overall, the content in the article is good. I do think more about the nitrogen cycle could be added since that is essential for life. But I like how it goes over the mechanism denitrifying bacteria uses to generate ATP.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * I would say the article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The mechanism section is heavily based and very detailed.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The mechanism is good to know but could be a little overrepresented. I think how denitrifying bacteria plays a role in the environment is underrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article mentions important environmental issues due to denitrification's large amount of by-products, that they contribute to global warming.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, I think the tone and balance could be improved a little better. It focuses heavily on certain topics more than others. At the end, it also could persuade one into biasing their opinion about global warming.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all of the sources are backed up by reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, they do other than the topic about global warming.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No not really. One source is form 1997, two from 2007 and the fourth from 2015.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work.

Sources and references evaluation
I think the sources and references could be improved and updated.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * For the most part this article is concise and easy to follow. The mechanism part is very clear and easy to follow. The environmental section can be a little difficult to follow.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Other than abbreviating N for nitrogen, I don't see any other errors or grammatical errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * For the most part, yes it is broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic. It hits on diversity, the mechanism and the environment.

Organization evaluation
I think the organization of the article is very straight forward and is easy to follow and read. It gives background about the bacteria along with characteristics, how it's mechanisms work and the role it plans in the environment.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No not really, it shows an example of a species of denitrifying bacteria on a petri dish. It looks like any other bacteria growing on a petri dish. The picture its self isn't specific to the topic at all.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The one image lets the reader know that it is a species of denitrifying bacteria.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, I think so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Since there is only one picture, I would say that it is located in the same place as to where I would put the picture. It's kind of appealing since the picture is located int he diversity section.

Images and media evaluation
Definitely needs more pictures and needs a better picture for sure that is specific to the topic.

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 has been one conversation regarding this article back in 2006 where the author of the comment was trying to get this article more exposed and known to more editors.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated mostly, start-class on the quality scale and rated low-importance on the project's importance scale. It is apart of many WikiProjects such as soil, biology, microbiology, molecular and cell biology and limnology and oceanography.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia give examples of each step in the mechanism so it is really easy to follow. It gives a better understand of what exactly is happening.

Talk page evaluation
This articles is used for many projects on Wikipedia. It doesn't have a lot of interaction on the talk or comments page though.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I think overall the status of this article is a 5 out of 10. It have a lot of good thing but also has things that need to be worked on.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The organization of the article is a big strength. Along with making the mechanisms very easy to follow and read.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It can be improved by adding more pictures and pictures that actually relate to the topic.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say overall, the article is somewhat poorly developed. There are some things that could easily be improved to help improve the poor quality.

Overall evaluation
Overall, I give this article an evaluation of 5 out of 10. With improving the picture quality and some of the information, this will help get the overall quality of the article closer to a 10.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: