User:KylieG/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: plant reproduction
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose to evaluate this article because it covers a great deal of topics that I have become familiar with in this class.

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
It does include a concise and clear introductory sentence. It does not briefly describe all of the article's major sections. Here, it misses information regarding plant history and sexual morphology. It does not include any information that is not present in the article and is very concise.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant and up-to-date. There is not content that does not belong, but it should include more information to make the article more understandable to the average person who does not study plants. It does not deal with any equity gaps.

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
The article is neutral and does not seem to be biased. I don't see any evidence of an attempt to persuade the reader any way.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Not all facts in the article have citations. The sources are not very current but do seem to be reliable. There is definitely more information available on this topic than is demonstrated by the sources cited in this article. The sources are written by a variety of authors but not all of the sources have their authors listed.The links do work.

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 somewhat difficult to read because there is not enough background on some of the principles of plant reproduction that are needed to understand the body of this article. It does have some minor grammatical errors, though I did not find any spelling errors. It is well-organized.

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 article does not include enough images. More images would be very helpful to understanding the contents of the article. The images included are captioned to some extent but captions could be more detailed to aid in reader understanding. They are laid out in a visually 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
People are making comments on the talk page about what should be included and how to improve the current information on the page. The article is rated C-class, it is part of WikiProject Plants, and it is Top-Importance for the WikiProject. The article discusses this topic in a similar manner to how we've talked about it in class, but it includes a great deal of vocabulary that is not well explained. Most of the terms I am referencing are terms we have used in class.

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 has a lot of good information on the topic but would benefit from more background, images, and sources to help readers gain a better understanding of plant reproduction. Its strengths are that it covers a great deal of vocabulary. It could be improved by a deeper explanation of the vocabulary and how it relates. The article is slightly underdeveloped.

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: I did not chose to leave my evaluation on the article's talk page.