User:Clgarner1997/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: Hexactinellid
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. The article is about a type of sponge which I find to be an interesting group of invertebrates. It has some good information but seems to be lacking detail.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Partially, but it does not mention the section on sponge reefs.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Lead evaluation
The lead is concise but could use more information regarding the sponge reefs that are mentioned in the content. It could also use more detail regarding the biology of the sponge.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes the content is relevant to the topic but I think it could be broken down better into additional sections such as life cycle or reproduction.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes the sources seem to be up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Their is no information on the reproductive cycle of the sponges.

Content evaluation
The existing content is good, but could be better broken down into different sections and more information could be added especially about the sponge reefs.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes it is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there are not.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There don't seem to be.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it does not.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article does not seemed biased in any way.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes they are
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they do.
 * Are the sources current? Yes they are
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they do

Sources and references evaluation
All sources seem up to date and generally reliable. Additional sources would be useful.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is generally concise. Could be slightly improved.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? It has a few minor spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, but it could be broken down better into more sections.

Organization evaluation
Could use small improvements but overall it is good.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes it does have images that help with the understanding of the sponge's form.
 * Are images well-captioned? No, some of the images have little to no caption
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes they do
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The lay out could use improvement.

Images and media evaluation
The images are helpful, but need improved captions and layout.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Most of the conversation is regarding the longevity of the sponge. There are also conversations regarding sourcing.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as a start-class. It is part of the marine life WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It was interesting that the contributors were so casual and open to comment.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page shows good collaboration and common sense when dealing with uncertain material.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It is rated as start-class and still needs improvement.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article distinguishes the sponge from other sponges and describing the morphology of the sponge.
 * How can the article be improved? This article would benefit from more information on certain aspects of the life cycle of the sponge. Additional sections could be used to organize the material.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is slightly underdeveloped and could use more information but the information present is well cited and well written.

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:

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: