User:Epipremnum aureum/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Pollen

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to do my evaluation on the Pollen Wikipedia page, the reason for that is because I feel like it fits nicely within the topic of plant ecology. Pollen can only be found in plants and plays a very vital role in reproduction which is essential for plants overall. I think the Pollen article was well done and went into a good amount of useful detail from a Biology perspective as well as an everyday point of view.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

When looking at the first sentence it seems to provide enough detail so that anyone can take a quick glance and identify what pollen is. When continuing to read the lead, it doesn't seem to explicitly or clearly mention the major sections of the article that will be addressed later on. But it does not seem to include any irrelevant information or be overdetailed, so overall the lead is good but can maybe be edited where the later mentioned topics are clear.

Content:

Everything within this article seems relevant to the topic, although the article branches out in different directions it always leads back the topic of Pollen. There doesn't appear to be any information that is out of date, but in the 'allergies' section of the article there seems to be some information missing about symptoms and how pollen allergies work in general. There doesn't seem to be any equity gaps within this article. When I was going through this article, in some places there seems to be references missing. There are parts where facts are written but no references are attached, so maybe some more citations can be added to prevent plagiarism.

Tone and Balance:

Throughout the article the tone seems to be neutral, there is no indication of there being any biases linked to this page or topic in general. The Biology aspect of pollen is mainly represented in this article, I wouldn't say it is overrepresented but I think that the allergy section does seem to be underrepresented compared to how much the structure is mentioned. When looking at the tone again, the entire time I was reading it I did not feel as though I was being persuaded to think about pollen in one way or another. I felt as though I was just collecting information about the topic which I view as a good sign.

Sources and References:

As I mentioned before, I did feel that there should have been more references in some places throughout the article just to aid the reliability of those pieces of information. But when looking at the sources that were cited, they all seem to be relevant to the topic, be provided from various authors and publishers and do not seem to include any biases. Lastly, the citations seem to have been done properly as I am able to go to the exact sources the information has been taken from.

Organization and writing quality:

I would say that the article is well-organized, relatively easy to read and has no grammatical or structural errors within the sentences throughout the page.

Images and Media:

The images provided in this article do help a lot when trying to understand things like the structure of pollen or what pollen attached to bees would look like during pollination. These images are well-captioned and do not seem to be hindering the image or structure of the page. There is only one problem with the images and that is that there seems to be an image missing or in the wrong place. As a sentence in the 'formation' section refers to an image that doesn't appear to be in the place that it mentions it should be.

Talk page discussion:

Some issues in the talk page that were addressed was about the structure of the page, people seemed to have problems about the order of sections and even thought that the page lacked some. There also seemed to be a lot of comments about missing information in the 'allergy' section of the article. The article got a B rating, and does not seem to be part of any WikiProject. The layout of talk page is relatively the same as how we talked about it in class, people leave messages to other editors of the page about any concerns there seem to be about the article and they collaborate and make the page better.

Overall impression:

I think the article is well-built, yes there are some thing that can be worked on and edited but I think it is in good condition. One of the strengths about this article is the amount of information relating to the structure and formation as well as pollination this article touched on. All of the information is detailed and seems to be relatively correct, which is great. Based off of what some people said on the talk page, it seems as though more sections could be added as well as more references. Overall, I would say that the article's status is in between well-developed and underdeveloped.