User:50.89.175.201/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Article: Polyspermy

Everything in the article is relevant to the topic, but the organization makes the information seem choppy. The organization of the article was distracting because it didn't go in a logical order, for example, the article gave specific cases before it had completed explaining polyspermy in general.

The article is unbiased and relatively neutral, though awkwardly worded at some times.

There are no specific viewpoints given in the article.

A majority of the citation links for this article didn't work, or the citations didn't have links. The citations that had links were referring to a very small, limited portion of the article and didn't connect to the overall concepts of polyspermy but rather a small section (animals that require polyspermy). The article however did a good job of including links to other wikipedia pages that are related - however this is really overdone (hamster, rabbit and mouse don't necessarily need to be linked to the page).

The facts given in the article aren't necessarily referenced (no in-text citations) so it is difficult to see where each piece of information is coming from. Overall the sources seemed neutral.

Some of the citations given were slightly out-dated, and I feel like a lot of information wasn't given. The article is too short and doesn't contain a lot of easy to access information on the topic.

The Talk page for this article is really interesting. I think being able to access Talk pages and getting to see the information behind the scenes as well as mild-debates is really interesting and I am excited to be able to use this feature. Looking at the Talk page for this article. I agreed with a lot of the suggestions made to the article, and as I was reading the talk page I found myself being more excited to find that I agreed with as well as some things I didn't really notice that should have been expanded on (inviable zygote formation is mentioned but there is a lack of elaboration).

This article is part of the WikiProject Biology

It has been rated as Start on the Wikipedia quality scale and Low on the Wikipedia importance scale.