User:Alyssabaldwin222/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Funga

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I choose this article due to my interest in fungal species and the noted lack of informational coverage available on many sources, including Wikipedia.

The topic of naming is important for effective communication of the sciences towards audiences unfamiliar with the diction used. This article clearly states the importance of the name "Funga" as a simplification of the subject for less knowledgable recipients in both areas of conservation and education.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The topic, the term "Funga," is clearly and simply introduced in the leading sentence, as well as properly expanded upon for brief background knowledge within the first paragraph. The definition of the term is included as the second paragraph; this would be more impactful as the first or second sentence of the first paragraph due to the brief descriptive overview.

Some complex language impacted the flow of the first paragraph. More specific details, such as the meetings where the term was proposed, could be included in following paragraphs.

Due to this article being a 'Stub' there is not any subsequent information to introduce. While perhaps considered concise, this needs to be thoroughly expanded upon.

Content

Though short, the content included in this article is all up to date and relevant (sources included). The lead section as the primary section gives concise introductory information on what the term means and where it's derived from, while expanding upon some of the more specific aspects of the term's proposition.

Due to this article being a 'Stub' there is not any subsequent information and therefore seems incomplete; this article needs to be thoroughly expanded upon.

Tone and Balance

The author(s) remained neutral in their presentation of all information. The included content is not biased towards any particular viewpoints, nor does it reference any subjects of inequity that require accurate and inclusive representation. The article does not attempt to persuade audience's towards a particular viewpoint.

Sources and References

The article includes multiple reputable sources to support all included information. For being a 'stub' article, five reliable references were included as sources. The variety, however, could be expanded upon; among the five, two sources were collected from the IUCN.

More sources should be located to conduct a more thorough examination of the recent knowledge of Funga.

Sources are linked and accessible.

Organization and Writing Quality

The organization is clear and clean for the lack of information present in the article. The diction is easy to read and there are no noticeable grammatical or spelling errors.

Some phrases could be moved around in the formatting of the lead section to better highlight the concise introductory phrases versus more detailed observations.

Images and Media

The image included does enhance understanding of the topic a marginal amount; only one image is included, however.

The image is captioned properly and formatted in a way that is appealing and immediately visible; any additional images should be formatted in this way.

Talk Page Discussion

This article is a part of the WikiProject Fungi on a mission to increase coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. It has been rated Mid-Importance for relevance and Start-class regarding content.

Others have also noted the need for more information, images, and media.

Overall

The article itself is clear and relevant, yet underdeveloped.

It has strong introductory and relevant information regarding the term 'Funga', its definition, origin, and relevance.

The information included should be rearranged to reflect relevance, as well as expanded upon. Any additional information, images, and media should be evaluated and included. Other sources should be assessed for further relevance and reliability, and included.