User:Monsteramom/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Hedera Cypria

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am interested in the plant and I noticed that the article has no clear subsections.

Lead section
The lead section is concise and clear, and demonstrates the key identifying characteristics of the species. It gives a thorough description as well as compares it to its commonly confused relative. However, The lead section is not followed by any headers or subsections. It also contains a grammatical error in the first sentence.


 * The lead sentence is concise and demonstrative of the topic; however, it does contain a grammatical error.
 * The lead does not contain a description of the following subsections because there are no clear following sub sections. It does however flow nicely into the following information.
 * The entirety of the lead and article both only describe the physical appearances of the plant, as well as similar looking plants. The lead does mention physical traits that are not mentioned later on in the article.
 * It is overly detailed in the fact that it contains information that is never expanded upon later on and rather than referencing future information, it provides unique facts that stand alone.

Content
The article focuses mostly on physical description. There is little to no other information provided.


 * All content in the article is relevant.
 * The content all seems to be up to date.
 * There is a lot of content missing, such as photos, uses, flowering, distribution patterns, and invasivity.
 * The article does not deal with an equity gap.

Tone and Balance
The article is written with a good tone, but only cites two references.


 * The article is neutrally written.
 * There is no biases that appear in the article.
 * There aren't over or under represented view points.
 * There are no relevant minority viewpoints to be described.
 * The article does not try to persuade the audience.

Sources and References

 * The facts cited in the article are referenced to reliable, scientific sources.
 * The sources do reflect the topic.
 * The sources are both about twenty years old.
 * The sources are written by a diverse selection of scientists.
 * The sources utilized are reliable. Although they are aged, the information is robust.
 * All links provided are functional.

Organization and writing quality
The content is not clearly organized into sections


 * The article is easy to read, but lacks organization and clear topics.
 * The article does have a grammatical error.
 * The article is not well organized or divided into subsections.

Images and Media

 * The article contains no images.
 * There are no images to be captioned.
 * There are no images to cohere with Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * There are no images to be laid out in an appealing way.

Talk page discussion

 * The only submission to the talk page is a user asking people to review their edit. The edit was fixing a link and the edit was successful.
 * The article is rated stub class of low importance to the WikiProject Plants. It is also apart of the Wikiproject Cyprus, but has not been rated in any way by them.
 * Wikipedia discusses the topic much less thoroughly than discussed in the wiki trainings of how an article should be.

Overall impressions

 * The article is overall decent. It is not in depth enough but it does contain reliable information and is mostly well written.
 * The article references very reliable sources and contains only very robust information such as physical traits.
 * The article could use better organization, subsections, grammatical correction, photos with descriptions, more breadth, and more references.
 * The article is underdeveloped.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.