User:Hdiorio/Evaluate an Article

Halicephalobus gingivalis
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

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 sentence does concisely describe the organism however it also states who discovered the organism but does not include the first name of the discoverer or a link to a wikipage. The other does include very brief descriptions of some but not all sections included in this article. The author includes information that is not restated in subsequent sections in more detail. The lead of this article is overly concise and very brief.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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 content in this article is not very descriptive. It's very surface level with little to no supporting details or facts. The sources included in the article seem to be dated and need to be reviewed to see if information is still current. The "Treatment", "Further Research" and "History" sections barely have any content and will need more content added to complete the page.

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
The tone of the article seems to be fairly neutral. I did not detect any bias or personal opinions stated in the article. There were no viewpoints represented in this article just basic facts. The article does not try and persuade the reader in any way.

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
The sources and references are sufficient for the article however there is a lot more content needed complete the page which will require more sources.

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 is broken down into sections that help with the understanding of the topic. It is very concise and for the most part clear with a few exceptions that I feel could have been worded differently for better understanding. No grammatical or spelling errors detected.

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
No images were included in the article to aid in understanding.

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
There is nothing on the talk page.

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
Overall this article is lacking greatly in content. There's not a lot of research done on this topic and not a lot of information on the page in general. This article would benefit from added pictures and content in general.

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: