User:Amf583/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: Carcinisation
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I decided to evaluate this article because it is the one that my wiki group is considering adding to. Thus, it will be good to have some idea where we are starting from.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the introductory sentence is a very brief definition of what the word means.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the lead doesn't include a brief description of the article's major sections. However, this is because the article only has one real section, and that it "Examples".
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the Lead contains almost all of the information on the page on the actual topic. The rest of the article is just examples of the principle.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is very concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic in that it falls under the heading of "Carcinisation", but it does not cover enough to really give even a small picture of the information.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content is up-to-date, as far as I can tell.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is a large amount of missing content, namely:
 * There is a precursory mention of the biologist who coined the term, but only to cite a small quote that said scientist gave. There is no further information on this man, how his work related to the topic, or any of his insights at all. The quote itself is interesting, but hardly relates to the topic as it was presented or even fits in the sentence in which it was given.
 * The article includes two sentences of Lead and then one other section, i.e. the examples. There is no information regarding the reasons for carcinisation or the history of it.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * It isn't really a multi-faceted issue, at least not insomuch as it is represented on this page. It is simply factual.
 * 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, ex/
 * "...which most scientists believe evolved from hermit crab ancestors."
 * "Carcinisation is believed to have occurred independently in at least five groups..." <-- Believed by who?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is concise, clear, and easy to read, but I wouldn't necessarily say that it is well-written. It is missing a lot of information and seems to talk about things that aren't wholly-related to the article itself.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, the first image does, but the second image is just a generic picture of a crab that seems to be added just so that the page has another photo.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is one comment in which someone added that the issue was dealing with convergent evolution.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is part of WikiProjects Anthroods and had a Start-Class rating
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There is very little information on the page, and most of it is examples, which is not how class generally works.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * This article needs a lot of work.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It has a good Lead and does have a lot of sources for how short it is.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More information on the history and a full explanation of the topic needs to be added.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Underdeveloped. The information that is available is well-cited, but it is quite sparce.