User:Kalemicrobiology/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article[edit]

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

Name of article: Cyanobacteria
I chose this article because my research involves the cultivation and characterization of cyanobacteria.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, links are included to guide readers to other helpful information as well.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Yes, it is concise.

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

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, reference list is good.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, there are also several references (120) and further reading links included.
Are the sources current? Yes
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is well written, but it is likely easier for scientists that work with cyanobacteria to understand this article than non-scientists because a lot of scientific terms are used (this is unavoidable, however).
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I saw.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, several
Are images well-captioned? Yes
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, they are scattered nicely throughout the article.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? No recent conversations, but past ones discussed how terminology of cyanobacteria has changed over time and the authors adjusted the articles for this changing terminology.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is a B-class article and is a part of 4 WikiProjects.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It is similar because the article is very thorough and our in-class discussions on topics are also very thorough.

What is the article's overall status? It is a strong article.
What are the article's strengths? It is very detailed and includes plenty of great references.
How can the article be improved? Not sure, it covers a widespread amount of topics involving cyanobacteria.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is well-developed and complete.

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 — ~~~~