User:Hannah.hgs990/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: Pseudomonas aeruginosa
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a common bacterium, and its wikipedia article is likely robust enough that I can hopefully model my wikipedia article similarly to it.
Lead
[edit]- Lead evaluation
The lead's introductory sentence is concise and describes the major characteristics of the bacteria, considering the breadth of knowledge we have about the bacterium. The leading paragraph gives roughly a sentence describing each topic covered within the contents of the article to summarize P. aeruginosa's characteristics. There is information included within the lead that is not brought up later within the article, when the author(s) discuss the bacterium's common occurrence in immunocompromised patients, especially when using the example of hot tub folliculitis. The lead is quite detailed, however, it is reasonably concise considering the amount of information present in the article.
Content
[edit]Content evaluation
[edit]The content of the article is relevant to the bacterium and its qualities, especially for microbiology students and microbiologists (though less so for the general population). The citations used in the article are a mixture of old and new, however Pseudomonas aeruginosa is not a newly discovered bacterium, and so a lot of the information was discovered earlier than 5-10 years ago. There is no content present which does not seem to belong, though a section could be added speaking more about commonly occurring symptoms and signs of P. aeruginosa infections in humans or animals, if one wished to tailor the article to being more relevant to those with a less formal scientific education.
Tone and Balance
[edit]Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The article is neutral in tone, and there does not appear to be any biases towards a specific viewpoint. The article is not written in a way in which the reader may be swayed towards a specific viewpoint, as various positions are not stated in the article (all information comes from scientific sources which are widely agreed upon).
Sources and References
[edit]Sources and references evaluation
[edit]While most information in this article is backed by citations, I came across at least three statements which required a citation, let alone a citation from a secondary reliable source. These statements did not directly describe qualities of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, but described things such as implications of clinical findings of the bacterium in people. There are almost 100 sources cited in the references section, ranging in dates from recent (within the last 5 years) to older (in the 1990s). After clicking on approximately 1 dozen links to cited sources, all worked, and led me to secondary articles from reliable sources (elsevier, pubmed, etc.).
Organization
[edit]- Guiding questions
Organization evaluation
[edit]The article is not concise and is at first quite overwhelming with information, however the bacterium has been widely researched and so this volume of material is necessary to convey the breadth of knowledge available about the bacterium. After briefly scanning the entire article, no major spelling or grammatical errors were seen. The article is well organized into divisions and subdivisions. It has good chronological flow as well, describing the basic biology of the bacterium before moving into pathogenesis, toxicology, etc.
Images and Media
[edit]Images and media evaluation
[edit]The article includes images which enhance understanding of the bacterium's appearance on various media, visualizations of positive vs. negative diagnostic tests, and other visuals which help the reader in their learning of how to recognize the bacterium. The images are well-captioned, yet simple, as many photographs are P. aeruginosa on different streaking plates, and repetition is not required on these photographs. Many photos are directly from the author(s)' own work and so no copyright regulations are infringed. The images are as visually appealing as a bacterium can be, though many fall to the right side of the page, and so the visual appeal may be enhanced by dispersing photos more than they currently are.
Checking the talk page
[edit]Talk page evaluation
[edit]The article is listed as a level-5 vital article in Biology and Plants, and is rated as B-Class. It is part of both the Medicine and Microbiology WikiProjects. The talk page discusses one of the initial photographs being inaccurate in depicting the appearance of P. aeruginosa, as well as listing the incorrect type of agar in the caption. Authors in the talk page are discussing adding a "Treatment and Prevention" section to the article, as I had mentioned previously in this evaluation, though sources for supplementing this section seem scarce based on the comments. One wikipedia user has also commented on the lack of "layman terms" in the article, as I had also mentioned previously.
Overall impressions
[edit]Overall evaluation
[edit]While the article could be improved by adding more thorough citations to specific statements and creating a section more tailored to less educated populations of individuals, the article thoroughly and accurately describes the main characteristics of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. It is well-developed, aside from adding sections more relevant to the clinical treatment and diagnosis of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. It acts as a great starting point for microbiologists, students, and clinicians to gain basic information on the bacterium.