User:Jhuerta3/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Aquilegia canadensis

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because i and other colleagues chose the article as a project assignment for the semester. The article seems to be written with accuracy and professional level of skill. the article has examples of the subject in picture form, and it also has references supporting the information provided in the link.

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.)

Lead Section
The lead section is descriptive and short in length. This provides an introduction that gives a summary of the information leading into the rest of the article. The lead section does not present an over abundance of information not found within the article.

Contents
The article covers each of its subsections in a light fashion while still giving meaningful descriptions and information about the section.

The references section shows that the information is supplied from sources from 4 to 20 years ago. that being said the information is fairly recent and could be updated if there is newer primary articles available. the article represents a single plant, and therefore represents a subsection of a large area of study.

Tone and Balance
the article is based on scientific gathering of data, therefore it is neutral; it does not investigate and provide information for a political or subjective topic.I feel that the "Other Uses" section could be more descriptive in a way that would deliver the information as to how the plant is used in its other uses. there is no sign of persuasion in the article.

Sources and References
while the wikipedia article itself is written well the source material shows a more articulated format. the wikipedia article is meant to be a compact summary of such writing but the source is written in a more informative fashion. the sources are all 4-20 years old, this being said one source is not available on the internet (anymore). while there are other sources of research for the plant in question, there are too many to individually determine if they are more accurate. i am sure there are other articles that are more thorough and appealing to read.

Organization and Writing
the article appears to be well written, short to its detriment, but not a bad read. the grammar seems to be correct, and it is informative.

Talk Page Discussion
the talk page discusses ratings as well as approvals based on the wikipedia standards.

the article was rated as a start-class and of low importance by wiki-project ohio and a mid-importance in the wiki-project Plants collaborative,

talk pages are pretty much in agreement from the way they were discussed in class.

Overall Impressions
the article presents the information in a pleasant and easy to read manner. The articles weaknesses lie in the "other uses" portion, where it feels dry and leaves the reader wanting to inquire more ( to fulfill this the article provides hyperlinks to this information). the article does a good job of giving enough information to know about the plants origins and description.