User:Cupnodels/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

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?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

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

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

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?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

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

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?

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

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

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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?[edit]

Antibacterial soap

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?[edit]

I chose this article to evaluate because I was interested in the biochemical mechanisms through which anti-bacterial soap prevented disease and how effective the commercial antibacterial soap are compared to other products such as hand sanitizers. My initial impression on seeing the article was that it was a lot shorter than I had anticipated given a topic as broad and proliferate as antibacterial soap especially given the recent pandemic.

Evaluate the article[edit]

The lead section of the article is very concise, touching briefly on the history and the effectiveness of antibacterial soaps, both of which are discussed later on in the article. Content-wise, the article appears to focus heavily on the effectiveness of antibacterial soap while neglecting the history and development of antibacterial soap. On that note, some things that could be added to improve the article include a more extensive history on the development of antibacterial soap as well has a description of how common antibacterial soaps function on a chemical level. While the article is up to date, citing sources from 2017, it does not really examine the equity gaps that could have been associated with the topic. To do so, one might consider looking into minority contributions to the development of antibacterial soap and who had access to this product over the years. Overall, the article adopts a neutral tone of voice by presenting research conclusions without trying to heavily influence the reader to favor one side or the other. From my research, the sources used in the article were relatively trustworthy and up to date, with the information mainly coming from peer reviewed articles and websites from trustworthy sources such as the FDA, and all the links appear to be functioning. Overall the article is concise with no grammatical errors. In terms of images, the article has an image providing an example of an antibacterial soap with the active ingredient chloroxylenol. The image does minimally enhance the quality of the article by giving an example of a popular antibacterial product but not much else. Perhaps images of the chemical composition of some of the antimicrobial agents would be appropriate to provide more information on the topic. This article's talk page mainly centers around two major concerns: the lack of content and some inaccuracies when referencing sources. There are suggestions to increasing the coverage on the history section of antibacterial soap, which I agree and also find quite lacking at the moment. Furthermore, there are concerns over some misunderstanding in the translation from the source material on antibacterial soaps to the article. The article is currently rated C-class with Wikiprojects Microbiology and Pharmacology expressing major interests in it. Overall I would say that the article is still incomplete. The article's strengths include well sourced references and concise delivery on select topics such as the effectiveness of antibacterial soap. The article can be improved by adding more information on the history, ingredients, and perhaps some other more critical topics on antibacterial soap such as their mechanism and industrial impact that are critical to understanding their role they play in today's environment. Overall, I would rate this as an underdeveloped article that has a good start but has room for improvement.