User:Hmoney1255/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Taxus baccata

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because it seemed to be very lengthy, descriptive and filled with different types of enlightening material. My first impression of this article was that the authors who developed this article took the time to do the research needed to provide information on this species of evergreen trees. The first impression of an article when you first look at it is very important because most researchers want a good amount of information to read and learn from.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of the article provided a brief but detailed description of the species. They provided information about what family it comes from, where it is native to, other synonyms of the species, and many other key components. The article gives the readers a short description of what is to come in the article. The lead is very short and concise. There are several resources at the bottom of this article, with sources ranging from the 1960s to 2021, meaning that the information provided is very up to date. The article is also seemingly neutral as the authors used language such as "it is suggested". That way they are not giving their opinion, but merely providing different opinions and suggestions for the resources they used. The sources used and listed are current. They also have a ton of sources that come from the 1900s, meaning they were able to use these to provide historical facts about this species. After clicking on some of the links, I found that the ones I had checked are all working properly and take me to scholarly journals and unbiased articles from other sources. Everything is very concise and easy to read, however, there were very small grammatical mistakes such as missing commas in certain sentences. The article is well organized and straight to the point. I applaud the authors for making brief but very informational sections so that it is easier to read and comprehend information. There were also several images on the page that correlate to the topic of the sections the pictures are laid next to. The images seem to adhere to the Wikipedia copyright regulations. In the talk page discussion, there were a lot of sources being removed due to them being "irrelevant and biased", and there were also some "unexplained" removals from the page. I believe this article was well-developed and the information was displayed and laid out very well, however, I do think the article could be developed a slight more. There are certain sections that are shorter than you would normally see on other Wikipedia pages, but this page describes this species nicely.