User:Andrewhoy/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crab_louse

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because it seemed like an interesting species and is also an invertebrate. It has a good amount of details in it as well.

Evaluate the article
lead: introduction is nonexistent, they just go right into contradictions. It does not give a description of any of the sections, but does talk about contradictions in the article.

Content: Most of the content is relevant. There are a few parts that are a bit off topic but for the most part, they speak only about the crab louse, but also random sections that just insult the author for bad content. Most of the content up to date, but some sources are over 20 years old and need to be updated. I would say there is a good amount of content that could be eliminated. They do not really mention any women or any minorities, however it is an article about bugs so I am not sure if there is much relative information, but I am sure an author could write about how it effects minority populations.

Tone and Balance: The article seems rather neutral, but there are a lot of debates about different aspects and facts which seems odd. There are a lot of claims that seem pretty biased and anecdotal rather than supported by fact. There are a few viewpoints that seem rather overrepresented like a medic and a biologist go back and forth debating some aspects of the insect. There are little to no minority view points. It does not really persuade, rather just different authors arguing.

Sources: Not all of the facts are backed up by sources and some of the sources that are used are not reliable sources and some are not cited correctly (just linked them). A lot of the sources are current but there are also a lot that are not, it is a pretty even mix between to two. Unfortunately, the sources seems to be pretty limited and are almost exclusively from a select few places. The links do work though.

Organization and writing quality: The article is neither organized nor precise. There are a lot of debates, with neither sides providing adequate sources and evidence. There are a good amount of grammatical and spelling errors but not enough to make it unreadable. The article is, once again, very poorly organized.

Image and media: There are no images present in this article except for a link to one that does not adhere to wikipedias copyright regulations.

Talk Page discussion: There were mostly arguments and that made up most if not all of the content of the article. It made a lot of the article hard to understand because there was rarely consensus or any evidence to support a wide variety of claims.

Overall impression: This wikipedia article needs some serious help. There is a lot of good information in the article about the bug and the "founder"(namer), but there should be more focus on facts and a lot more of a variety of sources. This article is not well developed at all.