User:Glaghiti1/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: (Ophiocordyceps unilateralis)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because I really like fungi and I want to see how it has changed from the last time I read it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it states what it is and the most relevant information about it all in the first sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Well it doesnt cover everything, and it leaves a lot of info about the sections out.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes it brings up how this fungus has a secondary metabolism that protects itself from other fungal infections, but it doesnt bring up this information again which is a real bummer because that sounds really interesting. How much of a threat are other fungi to O. unilateralis?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The first paragraph is pretty succinct about this fungus but then the next paragraph goes into explicit detail about secondary metabolism that really should have its own section.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes I love reading this page because it has so much interesting and diverse information that is relavent to this fungus. It goes from talking about zombie ants to using this fungus as a cure for cancer.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * I would have to agree because there has been a lot of recent research about this topic, but there hasnt been a lot of information discovered yet. For example, the page brings up how there must be research needed for how the fungus uses enzymes to cause the ants' limbs to atrophy when they die. A lot of the sources are from recent years, like 2018 and 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is definitely content missing because research of this fungus is still ongoing. All of the information was relevant and belonged in the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, the only historical info that it touches on is about Alfred Russel Wallace, but he is a whole known figure in the science.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes the article is pretty neutral. It doesnt really have a stance other than saying that this fungus is under researched.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There arent any claims that are really arguing for anything.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I feel like they talk about how the fungus is classified above everything else in this article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No this article doesnt argue against any positions.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes all of the statements look like they have a citation to a source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes they all link to academic articles.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes most of them are very recent.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources are all written by scientific researchers. There are multiple authors of each source, so it is very diverse.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * A few links of the sources are not available to everyone because you have to pay for them.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes the content is very well proportioned in each section.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, and the scientific names are all italicized, which is good.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, they are short and easy to read.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes it shows how the fungus infects ants, so the images are really important to this article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes it includes diagrams that compliment each other and the article.

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?
 * It is part of the Wikiproject fungi and wikiproject insects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is very diverse and easy to read.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More info can be added about the ongoing research of this fungus.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is well developed in the general scope of the topic but underdeveloped about specific things about it.

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: