User:Dandan619/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: (link)Taxonomy (biology)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it states where the word originated and a clear description of the article topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it describes the ranking of groups and the current method of ranking.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all information covered in the lead is thoroughly described in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is brief but gives a good overview.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, it gives detail descriptions of each subject
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, cited material is recent and from a credible source.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All the content present relates to the topic.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article gives a description of the history of taxonomy and related subjects.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, there are no biases sections.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, everything is stated with a neutral point of view.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Each section is described with a detailed, but not overwhelming amount of information
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article remain neutral, only stating facts.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, each fact and section is cited with a credible source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, each source is reliable in the specific area of information.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, majority of the sources come from a recent year.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, there are a diverse spectrum of authors and include informations from historically marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The several links I've checked do work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is well written and easy to comprehend.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, I have not seen a grammatical error.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is well organized and thoroughly reflects on the major points.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, multiple pictures related to the specific subject.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, gives a description of the picture.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, each picture follows the copyright guidelines.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, well organized.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Conversations include source codes and information checking.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated well and is part of a few projects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? They go into depth on source codes and talk pages have many people contributing relevant information,

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? I overall status is good and give a good understanding of taxonomy (biology).
 * What are the article's strengths? Detailed description of many subjects.
 * How can the article be improved? The article is very detailed and covered every point. Not much can be improved.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? This article is well-developed and has many citations for credibility.

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: