User:Zacharyherbert/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: Talk:Clostridium botulinum
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I am interested in Clostridium botulinum pertaining to its use in medicine given its extreme toxicity.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

There is no real lead introducing the topic. However the first section includes an introductory sentence that, in a short manner, that describes the Clostridium botulinum. However, this sentence is not very informative and simply gives a vague description of where the bacterium is typically found. There is no lead that includes a brief description of the article's major sections, thus information in the article can not be found in the lead. The apparent absence of a lead makes it so that it is neither concise or overly detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions

All but one part of the article is relevant to the topic; heading ":D I'm happy to see" has no correlation to the topic. The content is not up to date. The information on the LD50 of Clostridium Botulinum is given as a question, therefore accurate information should be updated within the article. There is content that does not belong, especially those that I have already pointed out. A lot of information about the actual bacterium is missing as the article does not give almost any information on the physiology, taxonomy, or genetics pertaining to the organism.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article appears to be neutral and it lacks any claims that appear biased toward a particular position. Information about the bacterium itself is heavily underrepresented. The main focus of the article seems to be on the toxin produced by the bacterium, though this is not explored in depth either. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in any manner.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The facts present in the article are not all backed up by a reliable secondary source. The are minimal sources used and the link attached for the source I found showed an unavailable webpage, therefore I can not decide whether or not they are thorough or current.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is not well-written. It is very disorganized, lacking flow and large amounts of pertinent information, making it hard to follow. The lack of information on the topic contributes to the lack of clarity in this article. I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors within the article, other than some run on sentences.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There is a microscopy photo of bacilli shaped bacteria, which, according to the caption, is a picture of E. coli and not the bacterium that the article is about. The one image is well captioned. I believe the image used does adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. There are no images within the article that go along with information.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There are many good conversations going on that are addressing flaws in the information and/or how it is portrayed to the reader. The article is rated a C-class and is part of Wikiproject microbiology. In class, we go much more in depth about different parts of a bacterium (as long as its pertaining to what we are going over in class), however, in this article information is scattered and only bits and pieces of information about the main topic is represented.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article's overall status is listed as High-importance. There are not many strength's to be noted in this article given it's serious lack of information on the topic. The article can be improved with the addition of images, a lead which includes a brief overview of the C. botulinum, information on the genetics, physiology, and other parts of the bacteria, and a complete reorganization pertaining to what is being discussed in the article. I would say that this article is strongly underdeveloped.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly 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: Talk:Clostridium botulinum