User:Danidamon/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: Starlet sea anemone
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: Nematostella is a model organism discussed often in our class in relation to development of body axes.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead doesn't mention much about the life cycle of the animal. It also mentions the ICUN and a classification as a vulnerable species which is never mentioned throughout the rest of the article.

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The article's content seems relevant, however there could be more information on interactions between conspecifics. The ecology section has a similar issue in that there is very little information on how the starlet sea anemone interacts with its surrounding ecosystem.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall the article reads as neutral.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


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

Sources and references evaluation
Everything is cited correctly and the links work but there is a ton of new research on nematostella that goes unmentioned. None of the sources are more recent than 2013.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article has a few sentences that read awkwardly. Many commas are missing. Overall, it could use a copyedit. The article feels as though it jumps around with sentences in an order that doesn't make a huge amount of sense.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The images are good, although the one image about its conservation status could use more explanation in the article itself. Perhaps one more image of the animal in its natural environment would be useful.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The article is in the WikiProject animals and marine life. Both projects list this article as start class and low importance. Very little conversation is happening on the page. In class we've focused much more on the animal's development than this article did.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
It definitely needs more work. It's clear the article is start-class as its more a rough outline than anything. The research section could definitely be expanded with new information that's arisen since 2013.

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: