User:Jlwatts98/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: (Antheridium)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose to evaluate this article, because it has pros and cons. It is short, lacking in sources, but still a good article.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The article does have a short sentence at the beginning which clearly describes the article's topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections but the article is so short.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise and well written, but lacking sources.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * To my knowledge, yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * It is missing detailed descriptions of how antheridia function and why they're important.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * no.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Some are, some are not. This article needs more citations.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article is concise, clear, and easy to read. It does not have any grammatical or spelling errors. It could be broken down into further sections.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
The images in the article are good and well captioned. They are laid out in a visually appealing way. I do not know if they adhere to copyright.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The article talk page is very bare save for my comments that I just uploaded.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
It is well-developed, but some detailed are missing.

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:Talk:Antheridium