This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
The first sentence of the lead let me know immediately what the article would be about. The lead also let me know that it would be compared to archaea and eukaryotes so I made sure to see if those were mentioned in the article as I read along. It was concise and easy to understand and what I was getting into.
The overall content of the article was related to the topic and stayed on track throughout it all. The author had a good flow from section to section and didn't have things all over the place. They made connections and did a good job explaining in terminology that wasn't difficult to understand.
The article was pretty neutral. The topic is one that would be difficult to be biased in because it's purpose and topic matter is based on facts and already known information. One thing I would say is to expand and give more information on gram-negative bacteria because the section of gram-positive bacteria was quite longer and informative.
The author had a good amount of references and as I went through them they did relate to the topics discussed and seemed like reliable sources. Most of the sources are before 2006, maybe inserting one or two that are a little more recent as well would strengthen this article just to get a newer look on the topic.
The article was well written and organized in a way that was easy to follow along and understand.
There is a couple images and a table in the article that helped give me a better idea of the structures being explained. They were very understandable and flowed well with the article. They looked to be cited correctly.
There are no conversations in the talk page.
Overall the article was informative and written in a way that made it easy to follow along. It hit the key points it needed to make without going off topic.
with four tildes — ~~~~
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
The first sentence of the lead let me know immediately what the article would be about. The lead also let me know that it would be compared to archaea and eukaryotes so I made sure to see if those were mentioned in the article as I read along. It was concise and easy to understand and what I was getting into.
The overall content of the article was related to the topic and stayed on track throughout it all. The author had a good flow from section to section and didn't have things all over the place. They made connections and did a good job explaining in terminology that wasn't difficult to understand.
The article was pretty neutral. The topic is one that would be difficult to be biased in because it's purpose and topic matter is based on facts and already known information. One thing I would say is to expand and give more information on gram-negative bacteria because the section of gram-positive bacteria was quite longer and informative.
The author had a good amount of references and as I went through them they did relate to the topics discussed and seemed like reliable sources. Most of the sources are before 2006, maybe inserting one or two that are a little more recent as well would strengthen this article just to get a newer look on the topic.
The article was well written and organized in a way that was easy to follow along and understand.
There is a couple images and a table in the article that helped give me a better idea of the structures being explained. They were very understandable and flowed well with the article. They looked to be cited correctly.
There are no conversations in the talk page.
Overall the article was informative and written in a way that made it easy to follow along. It hit the key points it needed to make without going off topic.
with four tildes — ~~~~