User:Ahiggs1013/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: Blood Falls, Talk:Blood Falls
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. This actually sounded really cool. What is Blood Falls? No idea before hand. Thought it sounded strange and wanted to know more.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, it tells me what Blood Falls is and where it is located.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes. It explains why it is geoscience and not a microbial related event. But it doesn't contain an introduction as for why there is a section on microbial astronomy.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- Very concise

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes.
Is the content up-to-date?
- Yes and no. Most of the content was from 2009, There was a single update during 2017.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- I feel like the section on astromicrobiology doesn't fit. It could have possible implications, but I'm not sure why the connection is made with this specific glacier.

Is the article neutral?
- Yes.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- No. I feel like there are a lot of newspaper articles that are cited here and not a lot of scientific journals.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- I think that they reflect the available literature at the time. Most of the article was made in 2009 with some more information added in 2017. It probably needs to be updated with more recent studies of the glacier.
Are the sources current?
- No. Most of the sources are from 2009.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- The links do work.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- I found it easy to read and it was clear enough that someone with a basic knowledge of chemistry and biology would understand.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Not that I could notice.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes. The article is broken down into the different aspects of the glacier and how it relates to different fields of study.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Yes. It has an image of the glacier itself from two different years and angles. It also contains a picture depicting where microbes exist in the glacier itself.
Are images well-captioned?
- Yes. Each one states what the image is and if it needs explanation, there is one given.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Yes.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Kind of. There is only three of them and they're all on the right side margins of the page.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- Most are about if there is any more research or what is being done to preserve the glacier.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- It is a part of glaciers, Antarctica, microbiology, geology and New Zealand wikiprojects.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- This article involves a lot of different fields of study, not just bacteria and archaea.

What is the article's overall status?
- I think it's good, but a little short and outdated.
What are the article's strengths?
- I think that it is concise and to the point.
How can the article be improved?
- More recent information, a better discussion of what types of microbes were found in Blood Falls and a better explanation as to why there is a section on astrobiology.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- Pretty well developed considering how old the information is and how little research was done on the topic.

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 — ~~~~