User:Illiad5922/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Talk:Autotroph

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I have chosen this article as it is a fair bit related to what we do in this class and coming from an ecological background I know a lot about autotrophs and I would know going in if something was wildly wrong. I have some familiarity with the topic.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead section of this article does a good job explaing the basics of what an autotrpoh is. The intro does not do a great job introducing the other sections of this page though all make sense to include. The presence and explination of chemioautotrpohs may be better suited in one of the other sections than the heading. Most of the information on the topic is found in the lead and should be moved to other sections.

The content of this article is relavant to the topic and does a good job explaining these things. Most of the content of this article has not been recently changed so how recent the sources does not feel an area of concern. This aloong with the tone of the article feel well done and not particuarly sweying. I would however reorganize the article as especial with the origins of autotrphos being the very last section it feels like a confusing set up.

The first image used is very confusing to look at, I would recomend finding a better way to convey that information. The use of the plant image also feels unnesisary to include. The captions also do not educate much, more just stating what an image is. Images should enhance and educate and not just be added in. The images are laid out well but apear to be taken from other wikipedia pages.

The talk page of the article has some very important corrections but also a lot of arguments about small words and if the corrections are needed. Wikipedia rates this article a C and that makes sense as some of it still needs to be corrected. We have not talked specifically about this clasification but we discuss plants from the past all the time in class.

The article overall has a status of C and I agree with this assesment as it requires a lot of clean up work and reformating. The information included is often good but in poor formating and could use a new layout. I would also recomend to follow some of the comments on corrections. The article is a bit underdeveloped but not overly so and it is a good start but by no means an end product.