User:Jiggyscience/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Cayenne pepper)

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 to evaluate this article due to it being an interesting topic. Another reason, is that I am looking at this as a potential article to improve for the class project, and I was able to find more scholarly sources with new information that I could add, making in a great candidate.

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.)

Review by Jiggyscience:

The lead to this article has some information regarding this topic and what the article contains, but there are some areas of improvement. such as reorganization, and some grammatical fixes for better reading.

The content of the article is alright, though I feel there is a lack of information about the species. And I feel that there could be much more added to give a better understanding of the plant and of the fruits. The information contained is fairly relevant to the topic, but I feel there could be more on individuals in the "varieties" section. I believe there could be some reorganization of the entire article to make it a better reading experience, and there could be some rewording (but very minor for the majority of the content). This along with more sections would greatly improve the article.

The tone and balance of this article seem to be good, and I do not feel that opinions were added, merely facts from sources.

Upon initial observations most information included seems to be backed by credible sources and every claim is cited to something, though there are some that are linked to websites that no longer have the pages containing the information, which shows that they were not a reliable/credible source and that would need to be addressed. Also, some of the sources are a little older (about 2017) which leads me to think it's just a little bit outdated, and can be backed by some newer information. There is more recent and more credible sources available through google scholar that could be added to this article.

There are some images included in the article, and I believe they help with the understanding of the plant, but they would be more helpful if the had some context (ex. the first image in the article located on the right side of the screen shows the different structures of the plant and fruit, and I believe it would help if there were some explanations of the different parts). I believe these images are all compliant with wikipedias copyright regulations. Also, I think the images are laid out in an appealing manner.

The talk section of the article is lacking in posts, and there aren't many conversations, but of the few posts there is one asking for the article to be improved, one stating this is a C-Class article and that it belongs to a "Wikiproject Plants", and one stating it also belongs to a "Wikiproject Food and Drink"

Overall this article okay, I believe it is a good foundation to add much more information to create something better. I just believe it is currently underdeveloped and missing some credible information, and there are some areas for improvements.

Improvements:


 * The content could be reorganized for a better flow of the article
 * Very minor rewording in some sections.
 * There could be more sections added speaking about the parent plants, such as growth, pollination, pollination methods, fruit growth, seed dispersal, and medicinal uses, etc.
 * Information with non credible sources can be supported by another credible source, or can be removed
 * There could be some reorganization of the lead to allow a better flow of reading
 * There could also be some rewording done to include more information about what the article contains (especially if more sections are added)