User:Irondome44/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: Escherichia coli
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- In lab, we use a mutant strain of this bacterium to obtain our desired enzyme, Alkaline Phosphatase.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, the introductory sentence describes the most general aspects of E.coli.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- The lead focuses on E.coli's role in causing disease and this seems to be the focus and running theme in all sections.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- The lead mentions that the bacterium grows quickly for 3 days in fecal matter and then its population declines, but this is not discussed in any sections of the article (including the section on cell cycle). It would be a good idea to discuss this and E. coli's ability to survive outside of an organism in general.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- Concise for the most part. The first paragraph describes E. coli, the second talks about its pertinence to disease, and last section explains its importance in the modern laboratory.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes, each section describes important aspects of E. coli.
Is the content up-to-date?
- It was last reviewed on 2014, but it has comments on its talk session going back a couple of months, so I would say the content is up to date.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- No, all relevant sections summarize aspects of E.coli well.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- No

Is the article neutral?
- Yes, facts are stated and described. The author points out different opinions regarding specific aspects of E.coli but does not take a stance.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No, as stated previously, the author does not have a position about any claims regarding E. coli.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No, the viewpoints about certain aspects of E. coli are spread throughout the sections, there is no overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoint.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No, it is objective in describing aspects of E.coli.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes, all facts are cited and the secondary sources include articles from Nature and the National Library of Medicine.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, they are scientific journals and textbooks, so they present a lot of content and most are published after the 21st century.
Are the sources current?
- No, most are within a decade of this article being reviewed. Very few are within this year.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- It's difficult to identify the diversity of the authors, given that there are over a 100 citations and each citation has multiple authors, but at least the authors have reliable credentials.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes, the links work.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes, some of the scientific vocabulary is beyond me, but it is understandable for the most part.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- No, no grammatical or spelling errors.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes, the article is well-organized into appropriate sections and covers important aspects of E.coli.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Yes, charts and images of E.coli help visualize different properties of E.coli. such as their shape and color.
Are images well-captioned?
- Yes, every image is captioned and relevant to the appropriate section.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Yes, the images are linked to their source and are either in the public domain, under creative common license, or permission was granted by the original authors.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Yes, images are next to the words they try to enhance.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- People are asking about specific details of E.coli that were not explained (such as their color).
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- It is rated as a "Natural sciences good articles", level-4-vital article. and a GA-Class article. It is part of 3 WikiProjects: Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team, WikiProject Microbiology, and WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- This topic was not discussed in class other than it being mentioned that a mutant strain produces large amounts of a desired enzyme.

What is the article's overall status?
- It is an overall good article, an updated review would make it even better as it would address some of the questions in the Talk page.
What are the article's strengths?
- It covers a breadth of information about E.coli but it is not overwhelming as it is neatly organized.
How can the article be improved?
- Adding more diagrams would help, such as adding a diagram of its cell cycle.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- The article is well-developed no doubt. It covers a vast amount of information, and all of it is well-organized with no errors whatsoever.

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 — ~~~~