User:Ellapoole/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: Sumac
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose this article because I don't know anything about sumac. Based on a quick glance, it seems like a plant used by many people for a variety of purposes, so I want some background knowledge because I expect to come across it again.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It includes a table of contents, but not a written description.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
The lead of this article is on the right track, but needs to be expanded to briefly mention each section of the article. Mentioning the uses of sumac would help establish the notability of sumac and legitimize the existence of the page.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Seems to be
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All my early questions about sumac were answered by the article
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article addresses the use of sumac in Middle East and South Asia and by Native American populations.

Content evaluation
The article's content appears relevant and up to date. I would clarify in the toxicity section that the sumac described in this article is not toxic because as it stands, that is not completely clear.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? The article reads as neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The article remains neutral as it describes sumac and it mentions the uses of the plant in many different regions, rather than focusing on one or a few.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Some sentences or paragraphs don't have many citations to back them up. I'm curious whether Wikipedia only flags articles with a low number of citations rather than a poor distribution of citations as needing citations? This article is not flagged.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? It seems so
 * Are the sources current? Many of the sources are not terribly current, but I don't expect that much of what we know about sumac has changed in recent years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? More references to authors from the backgrounds that are noted as using sumac would be helpful
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Some sections of the article need citations and some citations were completed incorrectly or lack details that could be easily found and added. There is an archival source, which I know Wikipedia doesn't like, but maybe it's fine because its accessible to everyone online?

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article could use more accessible language and explain some topics more thoroughly. The taxonomy section in particular could use some work.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not obvious ones
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, but the etymology section is short and could be absorbed into the taxonomy section.

Organization evaluation
The article should be revised for readability and the etymology section should be merged with taxonomy so that the size and importance of each section is more uniform.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Captions could be edited to include a short description, the type of sumac, and location
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? They seem to be. A couple say they are the work of the author, and I wonder if that is true. Some include more details on the source and licensing than others.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There are currently images in the etymology section that would make more sense in the taxonomy section.

Images and media evaluation
Licensing on the images could be explored more deeply and the example images of various sumac plants could be moved to taxonomy section.

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 were early discussions about whether to rename the page or split its content into multiple pages, one for the genus Rhus and another for the spice sumac. More recently, people have questioned small aspects of the content which were changed in response. Someone asked a question about sumac, and someone else shared photos of their sumac plants that could be added to the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It's rated as a level-5 vital article and as C-Class. It is part of WikiProjects "plants" and "Food and drink/Herbs and spices."
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We haven't discussed it in class.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page is cordial and serves its purpose well. The photos dropped in the talk page could be added to the article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article is off to a good start.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article has relevant information and covers all the bases for what someone who wants an introduction to sumac needs to know.
 * How can the article be improved? The article has some citation, organizational, and media errors that need to be fixed. Whether the uses it describe truly encompass all the uses of sumac by all the various people groups who use it should be explored.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Slightly underdeveloped based on the need for the improvements listed above.

Overall evaluation
Sumac will be a well-developed article after the improvements suggested in this evaluation are made.

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: Talk:Sumac