User:Lwitzel/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Odonata

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am very interested in dragonflies and damselflies and wanted to gain some insight about them from this article. I also found it by examining the different academic disciplines, as the training suggested.

Evaluate the article
The article starts with a good lead section, which very clearly defines the subject. It does not provide a general description of each of the article's major sections, but that is mostly intuitive to the reader. It is concise to the point of being easy to understand, but also provides a good amount of detail.

The provided content is also all relevant and relatively up-to-date on the subject, including articles from the 1900s as well as more recent works (up to 2021). However, more information regarding the nymph in the gallery section could be provided, as it does not state which species the nymph belongs to.

The article remains neutral throughout and does not appear to contain any bias or attempt to sway the reader in any specific direction. It is also written and organized in such a way that the reader can clearly follow and gain knowledge without being confused.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of missing citations, so some of the information provided may be questionable and not fact-checked. It is therefore difficult to tell if all of the information is accurate, since the sources are not provided. However, the references section of the article has a great deal of insightful sources from various authors and reputable publishing companies.

There are several different forms of media provided in the article. There is only one form of media that I found the caption to be insufficient - that of the nymph, which I discussed earlier in this evaluation. Aside from that, the media were insightful and captioned accurately.

The article is a supported course assignment, but the talk page does not provide a great deal of insight. The beginning of the page appears to include an extensive explanation of changes made by a bot. It was also used as an entomology assignment by one student. Therefore, there have been people working on it, but very minimal information has been relayed through the talk page. It has been rated as a C-class article on Wikipedia.

Overall, I think the article is well-written, but does have room for improvement. In other words, while it is well-developed, there are a few ways that the article could be made even better. There definitely is a strength in the depth of provided information, but citations would be able to verify their accuracy. Therefore, I agree with Wikipedia's rating, and would probably give this article a rating of a C.