User:Driletown/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Cryptocoryne

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 chose this article because it had been on my shortlist pages to possibly edit. As an aquarium enthusiast and fish-keeper I think this page matters because it provides a clearer understanding of Cryptocoryne, a common aquatic plant in home aquariums. At first look I think this page does a decent job of presenting basic info on this plant species. However, there are three flags indicating lack of citation!

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:

The Lead section of this article seems concise, family name and distribution of genus are given in the first sentence. The first paragraph provides brief descriptions of habitat and inflorescence, and mentions common names. The taxonomy and distribution are expanded in the article, I don't believe anything in the lead is absent from the rest of the article, although there is a heading for "Crypt Melt," and this topic is not mentioned in the lead (although it is a hot topic of discussion in the hobby).

Content:

The Content of this article is entirely relevant to the subject in my opinion. While the content remains up to date, 2 of the 4 references are to defunct hobbyist webpages, one of which is archived on the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. These references could be replaced with updated sources. I don't think there are any important pieces missing from content. I don't believe this article deals with equity gaps in any meaningful way.

Tone and Balance:

I believe this article remains neutral in tone. The information to do with range and distribution uncontroversial and is presented clearly, with mentions of early botanical synonyms. The section on Crypt melt presents different views as to its cause. There aren't any fringe viewpoints presented as far as I am aware. There is no rhetoric used to sway readers.

Sources and References:

This is the reason I chose this article. There are multiple citation flags on the article, and while all links still work two of the four link to old hobbyist webpages, one of which is officially archived at time of writing.

It looks like there are some scholarly articles including a comprehensive Kew Gardens document on Arum spp. which could be used as citations for original description of this genus.

Organization and writing quality:

I didn't detect any grammar or spelling mistakes on this page and it seems clear and concise as written. It is broken down into sensible subheadings (although as previously noted, one of these subheadings goes unmentioned in the Lead.

Images and Media:

Three well attributed 'own work' images are included, they are laid out in a sensible way and illustrate three species, one of which (Wendtii) is the most commonly available crypt at my local fish store.

Talk page:

This page is rate "Start-class" in the talk page. There are a couple of discussions ongoing. One of these is to do with attribution of the contemporary classification and early synonyms and the other is about removal of several species from list due to lack of information (all species described by one poster on Youtube). These discussions align with the tone and protocols outlined in class.

Overall impressions:

Overall this page seems like a solid start. It provides good general information on the genus and matches other similar pages in tone and layout. It can be improved by providing more solid and contemporary sources for the given information and perhaps a sentence referencing 'crypt melt' in the Lead.

I would assess it as underdeveloped.