User:JLawlis/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: Coitocaecum parvum
 * I chose this article because it gave a very minimal introduction on what a Coitocaecum parvum is. It is a very intermediate article with very minimal descriptions in its subsections.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead in this article gives a quick definition as to what a Coitocaecum parvum is and a brief description of where they are found. It is very concise but does not give enough detail on the species. There is a list of the major sections but no descriptions. In general, this section needs more information on what the article is about.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The content in the subsections are relevant to what it is describing. However, much more detail is needed. A few examples, the "Life cycle" sections could go into more depth as to how and why the species chooses the intermediate host. As well as describing what happens to the worm and host after penetrating and how it penetrates the host. None pf the sources/ content are within the last 10 years so it could be updated.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article did not appear to have any bias, thus it was represented neutrally. Furthermore, no persuasion was relevant.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

It seems the majority of the references were retrieved from Journals. There were only a few references, so more would be desired to retrieve the most precise and relevant information. The links in the article were relevant and very helpful with defining non-common words. However, there was not access to the references from the page.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article was very concise with minimal detail. It was also not very easy to read because many sentences were not elaborated in common word. However, they placed links to help describe some of the literacy. The article did a good job breaking it down into sections and then elaborating on those sections. However there was only a few sections. The article was more directed towards the species life style rather than the species as a whole.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

This article does not include any images. The only images were visible in the links included in the article


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

Unfortunately, there was no conversations in the Talk page, which is probably why no edits or improvements have been made to this article.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

This article can be greatly improved but does have a good start. I would consider the article underdeveloped, it seems as though it just wasn't completed.


 * 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?

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: