User:Ks30096287/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Name of article: Bamboo coral
 * I chose to evaluate this article because there is not a whole lot of information on this page. Another reason why I chose to evaluate this article is because the corals of the ocean are very important for oxygen production and it is not talked about enough.

Lead evaluation
The introduction sentence mentions the topic of Bamboo Coral but quickly becomes confusing as to the purpose of the article. It seems like a compilation of jumbled facts. There are not really any major sections to be mentioned in the lead. The facts that are mentioned do not seem to be purposed for creating new sections to add detail and expand. In the lead the practice of ocean trawling is mentioned and is again mentioned later but without any explanation as to why it is important or has an affect on the coral as is stated. The lead is not concise, it is confusing and seems to have no real purpose other than to just compile random facts.

Content evaluation
The content is related and relevant to the topic. The content isn't very up to date as the most recent source is from 2011 and was added in 2012. The article is not very expansive so it is possible for there to be lots of information. For example the affect of the coral on the environment and the relationships it has with other animals could be talked about. The information included isn't necessarily irrelevant but could be organized in a way that makes contextual sense as to its necessity for the article. The article doesn't deal with a historically underrepresented population.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral. There are no claims that are biased towards any position. There are no over- or under- represented viewpoints. The article doesn't use any persuasion.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources and references for this article are not very good. Some of them are very unprofessional looking websites that do not carry much information themselves. There is a fair variety of sources that reflect how much literature there is on this topic. The sources are not current. Many of them are from before 2010 and many of the links no longer work, there are about 5 that direct to a page that has been removed or does not exist. There are many different authors but it is hard to tell if any are inclusive of historically marginalized individuals especially because many of the links do not work.

Organization evaluation
The article is not well written. There are only two categories, one simply labelled "Description" and the other "Genera". The "Description" category is very vague, it is unclear what it is supposed to be about. The thoughts seem randomly thrown in and many seem unimportant in relation to the article as a whole. I do not believe there are any grammatical or spelling errors in this article.

Images and media evaluation
There a minimal images included in the article. They would be more useful to enhance understanding is they were captioned better. The captions do not provide the clarity they should as to the relevancy of the pictures that are included. The images are not sourced or cited. They are laid off to the side of the article which helps with the visual appeal.

Checking the talk page
There are no conversations on this article's talk page. There are only 2 mentions, which are the WikiProjects this article have been included in. These projects are: WikiProject Animals, and WikiProject Marine life. This topic has not been discussed in class.
 * Guiding questions
 * Talk page evaluation

Overall evaluation
This article's overall status is poor. The strengths are minimal but one would be that there a pictures included to provide a visual representation of the subject. The article could be improved by adding more categories of information on the subject and organizing the thoughts better. Another improvement could come from adding new sources and re-sourcing the material where the sources are no longer active. Using more current sources would also make a great improvement on this article. Overall this article is very underdeveloped and poorly at that.

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: