User:Buginarug11/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
T. Chantrieri - Tacca chantrieri

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I have chosen to evaluate this article because it has a stub rating, therefore it is lacking in a lot of essential information and needs a lot of cleaning up. This makes it a perfect article to to edit. This article is important not only because T.Chantreri is a very interesting species, but it is also has health benefits as an Neuro-protective and Anti-inflammatory Ditetrahydrofuran. It also aids in Hypotension. Furthermore, increased knowledge on this species may lead to increased interest by medical providers or people looking for natural remedies. My preliminary impression of this article is that it is missing a lot of important information. The article only has three sections: description, geographical range, and cultivation. The latter being significantly sparse on information.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section-

This section has a good first sentence however it is lacking in pretty much everything else. It has no overview on what the article covers in its major sections. It contains a section about its discover, however that information is not included or built upon anywhere else in the article. The lead is concise, but to a fault, leaving out basic information that the reader should be able to grab from just the first paragraph of the section.

Content-

Content is what is missing most in the article. While the article contains a description, geographical range, and cultivation section, they are lacking in detailed information. The article also has no mentioning of its uses, culture, or etymology.

Tone and Balance-

The article is neutral in tone and does not contain bias. There are some past viewpoints on the species that is mentioned however, it is explained.

Sources and References-

There are some unreliable sources, however with some editing that can be cleaned up. Most of the sources are from journals which is largely a better source than the internet. The most recent source is one from 2021. All of the links are working. The sources also have a range in authors. While some of the sources are good there are better sources that could provide a deeper look into the information.

Organization-

The article is well organized. The writing is concise and clear and free from spelling errors. The sectioning is also done well.

Images/Media-

There is only one image of the mature bat flower. It would be more informational to see multiple images in stages of growth so that readers could be informed of the differences in appearance at each stage of maturity.

Talk Page Discussion-

This article is rated stub and of low importance. There isn't really any conversation going on about the article.

Overall Impression-

Strengths: Layout, conciseness, organization, and basic information.

Weaknesses: Content, Lacking Information, Images.

Completness: Underdeveloped