User:Mmarrieta/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.


 * Pitcher Plant: (Pitcher plant)
 * This is a C-class article labeled with High importance. I also chose this one because I am interested in plants.

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
The introductory sentence is satisfactory. There is a little map of the different sections covered. The lead is condensed and paints an over view. The rest of the article continues to become more elaborate.

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?

Content evaluation
The content of the article is thorough with many pictures and subheadings. It seems up-to-date. I'm sure there's much more that can be discussed about this kind of plant that a botanist could fill in.

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 scientific and fact-based in tone. There is no personal agenda.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There is a long section of text in the "Types" subsection that doesn't have citation. One of the references is from an article online from Live Sciences. I don't know how to tell if this is a peer-reviewed website that is reputable.

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 writing is fine, the article is broad, but links to many other related pages that provide more specific information. As a lay-person I don't know what else to add off the top of my head, but I can see that a super nerdy botanist might have areas they would want to expand upon.

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 images are great and plentiful. High resolution, varied, interesting, well captioned. All of them but one had information about the origin of the photo. I haven't learned about copywrite laws surrounding photos yet so I don't know which are in compliance. There was only one that had a lengthy text giving full permission. Another had a note from Wikipedia saying that they had written permission from the author to use the photo.

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
The talk page looks like there are a lot of suggestions without a lot of action.

It is under a WikiProject Plants project. It is rated C-class and a high importance.

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 is fine. People in the talk pages want more information about how to take care of their own pitcher plants, but that's not what the page or what wikipedia is for. I would like more details about which pitcher plants are indiginous to what areas, if any are invasive, if when they are relocated if they can't find the right kind of prey. I'd like to know about other animals that they prey on - mammals, birds, bugs etc.

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:Pitcher plant