User:Lnogrady/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:
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This article is the article I am choosing to review because I believe that more information should be available about this tree.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the introductory sentence states clearly which plant the article will be addressing.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the article is only two paragraphs so all the information is compiled into two straight blurbs of information.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the article is only two paragraphs long.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise. In my opinion, can be considered only the introductory sentence.

Lead evaluation
The lead is basically only the introductory sentence.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, both paragraphs are strictly about the plant.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, but some content is inaccurate due to what I assume to be typos.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is lots of missing content, including but not limited to a full taxonomic description.

Content evaluation
More content needs to be added, and what is already there needs to be modified for accuracy/typos.

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

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is very straightforward in presenting facts.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Some sources not directly cited are more useful than those directly cited.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Not all

Sources and references evaluation
Sources need to be updated as some do not load anymore. Some sources are good sources but are not fully utilized.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Very concise but not well-written. It presents facts but generally needs more organization.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * yes
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * no

Organization evaluation
The article paragraphs need to be re-done into topics and sections if enough information is present and relevant. Even if not redone into topics, the article still needs to be reorganized into a more easily flowing read.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * no
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes, both images are not copyrighted and are listed for use by the public
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * yes

Images and media evaluation
Both images are helpful

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * the only post on the talk page is one saying that the swamp poplar is not a cottonwood.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is part of the WikiProject Plants, and is rated as a stub with low importance
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
little active influence on the page with little concern shown by those who have interacted with it

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Stub
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Content directly presented
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Content can be updated, errors fixed, and then reorganized into a piece that flows for the reader.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * poorly developed

Overall evaluation
this article needs a lot of help, but has the bones of a good work

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: