User:Lynamai/Evaluate an Article

Lungworm
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Lungworm
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.: I picked this topic because it is something related to our class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?: yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?: Sort of
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?: No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: Concise

Lead evaluation
It needs to be more organize. I would talk about what is a lungworm and what is their taxon. Then I will briefly talk about how you can be exposed to it. There is also no citation.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Some
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes

Content evaluation
Some of his articles are over 10 years ago. There could be article that are recent with better information about this worm. I will also find more articles about this worm that are not from a website.

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
N\A

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No
 * Are the sources current? No
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Most of his sources are from a website, so it could be unreliable. I would find sources that are in literature. Most of his sources are over 10 years and should be improved with recent sources.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Sort of
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
I would find a way to reword the introduction. It was hard to follow and it seemed sloppy to me. I can tell it is disorganize and need some work. The topics about the worm superfamily is not all together.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? N\A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N\A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N\A

Images and media evaluation
There were no images.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Yes
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Low Importance and Start-class
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It really focus on its lifestyle

Talk page evaluation
N\A

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?Low importance
 * What are the article's strengths? Each section had a topic
 * How can the article be improved? Organization, images, reliable sources and recent sources that are not from website
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Undeveloped

Overall evaluation
N\A

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:Talk:Lungworm