User:19345beta/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Double fertilization
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I used this page while trying to better understand the more scientific readings about why and how this process occurs.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Not really, however, the introduction paragraph explains it well.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Only for one of the two additional sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Possibly a bit to much information in the lead and more sections are needed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? No, Very little discussion of the mechanism for double fertilization in the content section.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, some misinformation was just removed last month after someone posted false facts.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The discussion of gymnosperm double fertilization is portably in much more depth then needed.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It is part of the Wikipedia plants project and is rated as both minimal and medium importance.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes, given how rare double fertilization is in gymnosperms, there is way too much about it.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Nothing out of the ordinary.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, far from it.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources that exist do appear to be peer reviewed.
 * Are the sources current? No, but I do not expect them to be.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Seems diverse enough, lots of work by Friedman but that is not a concern.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Three I checked are good.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, but plenty of room for improvement.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I noted.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No, not broken down well.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Images are good, but a video would be better here.
 * Are images well-captioned? No.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, some prior images were taken down.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The best content is about mechanisms and physical flower anatomy.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes, Wikipedia Plants.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Not differently, just goes into more detail on different things then we did.
 * Talk page evaluation. As expected.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Average.
 * What are the article's strengths? Content is easy to find in the lead.
 * How can the article be improved? Table of contents needs additional content.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Work in progress.

Optional activity

 * 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: Talk:Alternation of generations