This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Prokaryote
- I chose this article to evaluate because of my recent interest in bacteria.
- Guiding questions
The lead provides a concise and clear introduction to the article. The lead also provided background to the organism and its role in classification. The lead provided a definition to the organism and explained the unique properties that differentiates it from other organisms. There is a context page that provides the article's major sections; dividing information into categories, giving article order and structure.
Lead evaluation
- Guiding questions
The article context is relevant to the topic. There are other organisms discussed in relationship to the topic. The information is up-to-date but missing information on archaea. This organism is also part of this classification but is not as highly discussed as bacteria. It does not give comparison between bacteria and archaea which is important to distinguish when classifying prokaryotes; there is little information on archaea. The article does discuss the similarities of archaea and eukaryotes. The article also addresses how discovery of similarities between archaea and eukaryotes have changed how science views phylogenetic tree.
- Guiding questions
The article is neutral; providing information from multiple articles. There are no apparent claims that are heavily biased. There is overrepresentation of bacteria and underrepresentation of archaea. The article does not persuade reader in favor of one position but more-so lack information and data on one subject.
- Guiding questions
The articles are backed up by reliable secondary sources of information that reflect the topic. The articles provide more background to the current topic. There are multiple articles from a diverse spectrum of authors and links are current.
- Guiding questions
The article is well-written; easy to follow and concise. The article had little to no grammatical errors. The article is well-organized; context provided categories and information is well presented and relevant to the category.
- Guiding questions
The article provides diagram with appropriate caption. The images do not adhere the Wikipedia copyright regulations. Images are laid out visually and presented according to category.
- Guiding questions
In the talk page, missing information on archaea was discussed and request for differentiation between bacteria and archaea was requested. Clarification on definitions and modifications to the article were presented. The page was last edited in April 2020, fairly recent. It has been rated C-class; it can be useful for background but not recommended for studies. In class, it is more depth and conversations so it varies greatly. The article was useful for background but details are missing from article. The page was involved in three WikiProjects.
- Guiding questions
The article can be improved with context and more information. The categories of topics are established but more information can be added. Article could add more on archaea; general information about this group missing. Article discusses bacteria but does not mention subcategories. It is well-developed but can be improved by adding more content to what has been established.
- 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:
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Prokaryote
- I chose this article to evaluate because of my recent interest in bacteria.
- Guiding questions
The lead provides a concise and clear introduction to the article. The lead also provided background to the organism and its role in classification. The lead provided a definition to the organism and explained the unique properties that differentiates it from other organisms. There is a context page that provides the article's major sections; dividing information into categories, giving article order and structure.
Lead evaluation
- Guiding questions
The article context is relevant to the topic. There are other organisms discussed in relationship to the topic. The information is up-to-date but missing information on archaea. This organism is also part of this classification but is not as highly discussed as bacteria. It does not give comparison between bacteria and archaea which is important to distinguish when classifying prokaryotes; there is little information on archaea. The article does discuss the similarities of archaea and eukaryotes. The article also addresses how discovery of similarities between archaea and eukaryotes have changed how science views phylogenetic tree.
- Guiding questions
The article is neutral; providing information from multiple articles. There are no apparent claims that are heavily biased. There is overrepresentation of bacteria and underrepresentation of archaea. The article does not persuade reader in favor of one position but more-so lack information and data on one subject.
- Guiding questions
The articles are backed up by reliable secondary sources of information that reflect the topic. The articles provide more background to the current topic. There are multiple articles from a diverse spectrum of authors and links are current.
- Guiding questions
The article is well-written; easy to follow and concise. The article had little to no grammatical errors. The article is well-organized; context provided categories and information is well presented and relevant to the category.
- Guiding questions
The article provides diagram with appropriate caption. The images do not adhere the Wikipedia copyright regulations. Images are laid out visually and presented according to category.
- Guiding questions
In the talk page, missing information on archaea was discussed and request for differentiation between bacteria and archaea was requested. Clarification on definitions and modifications to the article were presented. The page was last edited in April 2020, fairly recent. It has been rated C-class; it can be useful for background but not recommended for studies. In class, it is more depth and conversations so it varies greatly. The article was useful for background but details are missing from article. The page was involved in three WikiProjects.
- Guiding questions
The article can be improved with context and more information. The categories of topics are established but more information can be added. Article could add more on archaea; general information about this group missing. Article discusses bacteria but does not mention subcategories. It is well-developed but can be improved by adding more content to what has been established.
- 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: