User:CarlyMcCall/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: Common descent
 * There are many hypotheses of evolution and it is often a very controversial topic. Having accurate and non-biased resources on all of these hypotheses, like common descent is incredibly important for public knowledge.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes the lead sentence is informative and gives a brief intro of the topic covered in the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It could have a sentence or two more about the evidence for this theory in the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * It talks about the last universal ancestor and the earliest evidences in the Lead but not again in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * There is too much information about the early evidence in the Lead, but the rest of the information is incredibly concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * There are sources from the last 5 years contributing to the content in the article which indicates that the content is being updates as new information is available.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There should be more information about the early evidence and why that evidence is relevant/meaningful for this evolutionary theory.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is neutral and presents current evidence, as well as objections to the theory.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article does not seem biased and merely presents the information available.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * It heavily focuses on genetic evidence, which while an important and huge part of this theory, there is other evidence that could have been presented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * It does not attempt to persuade the reader, it explains current objections while also adding why those objections are unlikely explanations against the theory

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are many references for all of the information presented in the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes there are references from a variety of available resources including many peer-reviewed journal articles.
 * Are the sources current?
 * A few of the sources are older but they are for topics like the history in which the information has not changed. There are many current sources for the genetic evidence of common descent.
 * 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?
 * The Lead is slightly hard to follow and took a few times scanning it to understand everything that is being said. As someone familiar with the topic this wasn't due to confusion with the content, rather it was structured a bit strange
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not recognize any grammatical or spelling errors, but I do believe some of the content could be phrased more clearly to ensure better understanding.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The structure of the article is logical. The Lead is followed by history of the topic, then current evidence, and finally objections to consider.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The images are relevant but I am not sure the picture of Darwin's finches at the beginning of the article is the best picture to identify common descent as it is known more for natural selection and speciation. While these topics are a part of the theory of common descent another image could have been more informative.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes they explain the images well.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The table of the standard genetic code is a bit large.

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 are many conversations going on about many topics, including other contrasting theories, grammatical corrections, and determining information that may or may not be relevant to the topic.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is a C-class article, and is apart of the Biology and Evolutionary Biology WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It focuses on similar topics than those covered in the Evolution class here.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It could use some more information, but the information now is well presented.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is non-biased and presents well supported and relevant evidence for the theory.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More evidence outside of genetics, and some small rewrites to make it the information more clearly understood by those unfamiliar with the topic.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is underdeveloped and could use more information.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: