User:Joannagallagher00/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: Vachellia cornigera
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because this topic has been an interest of mine for a longtime. I, also, saw that it was lacking in a few ways and knew that I could make it better.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
I think that the opening sentence does an okay job of describing the article's topic. There are some descriptors of the tree that make the sentence over the top and a little difficult to understand if a person doesn't know anything about plant structure. The leading paragraph does not briefly describe the sections of the article. Instead, it continues to describe the plant structure with only a picture of the leaves. The lead is only about what the locals call it and what it looks like. There is no paragraph that goes in more depth about the structure. The lead is overly filled with information that is not really relevant to the rest of the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The other major paragraph about the symbiotic relationship that acacia trees and ants have is the only other relevant topic discussed. There is a brief paragraph about uses that could use some filling out. The relationship paragraph is the most researched subtopic in this article. This content appears to be up-to-date but could use some freshening up.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
This article appears to be neutral with no language indicating any kind of bias. The only thing that is overrepresented is the one paragraph about the symbiotic relationship. Other content can be added in order to balance things out a bit more. There are no attempts at persuading the audience.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
Not all the facts appear to be backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. There are only three sources linked and a lot of ideas are linked as Wikipedia articles. There are some better sources out there that would better reflect the literature on the topic. Out of the three sources one is from 1983. There is a cited discontinued website and one newer source from 2016. The external links all work but they are also outdated websites.

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 easy enough to read. It is all over the place with its organization. There are no grammar or spelling errors that I could find. The organization is not very good. More information could be added, and it could be broken into more relevant 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
There are two images and a map. The two images show pretty much the exact same thing. They barely add to the understanding of the article because they don't show what they are trying to show very well. There captions are two words and don't represent the pictures very well. I believe that they adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The article is not laid out in a very appealing way.

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
There is one conversation from 2006 that has relevant critiques that haven't been worked on in the actual article. It has some really valid points that I agree with and have been writing about. This article is ranked low in importance. And it is a part of a WikiProject now that I am going to edit it.

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
The article's overall status is right in the middle. There are some good things about it but also a lot of bad things. It can use some work. The article's strengths are on the symbiotic relationship mentioned in it. This article can be improved by adding more relevant and up-to-date sources and pictures. This article, to me,

feels halfway done.

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: