User:Xedric123/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: Ice-minus bacteria
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen this article because this article talks about the modification of a bacteria and how it could potentially help society.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No
 * 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? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise, but I believe some of the details should be in other sections of the article

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? No
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is content missing
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? No
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes, it is pro-GMO
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes, the skepticism of GMO is underrepresented in this article
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
 * Are the sources current? No, there are sources that date back to 1987
 * 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

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is clear
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The sections can be improved

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Some conversations happening are criticism of the article, if anyone or any scientist is claiming that the bacteria will kill other species
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? No
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The Wikipedia article talks about the controversy surrounding a court case between Jeremy Rifkin and NIH and the implications of such trial in genetically engineered microorganisms.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? C-Class
 * What are the article's strengths? The article has laid a foundation in how the article should be developed
 * How can the article be improved? The article can be improved by adding a different perspective of the Ice-Minus bacteria and whether there is actual evidence of what the importance of the bacteria
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is somewhat developed

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: