User:Nanningam/Evaluate an Article

{| class="wikitable" Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:
 * Evaluate an article (Perennial Plants)
 * Evaluate an article (Perennial Plants)

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead does include an introductory sentence and within the sentence a perennial plant is clearly defined and introduced as the topic the article is about.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? NO
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) NO
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? it is concise

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, it is informative of the different types of perennials and the life cycle of them as well.
 * Is the content up to date? The majority of the resources or references cited are from 2008 or earlier few are from 2018 and more recent. Although this might be topic where the information doesn't change much at all so the references can still be relevant.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There could be much more added to each of the topics, it is a short article with very few short topics.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no it does not deal with equity gaps or discuss topic related to historically underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral? Yes. It is Informative and avoids being persuasive or biased.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No it is informative not persuasive or biased
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? it doesn't have to be because it is informative about perennial plants
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no not at all

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. a lot of the references are books that are reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Sort of some is recent as in the last four years bit majority are from early 2000's.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the references are from all over the world and represents all walks of life, from farmers to authors and scientists' experiences with perennial plants.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) yes, there are some sources that are more recent, and peer reviewed although the references it has now are also peer reviewed as well just not as recent.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes, the links work

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * 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, there are a few but it needs more

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes many
 * Are images well-captioned? Most are informative but there is one that is general, and it should be more specific. it mentions that the picture is of seeds that are perennial plants but doesn't say which plants.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are a few people on the talk page and they are mostly talking about their interest in classifying perennials. there are also add on to the original article mostly the subtopics.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? it is part of two Wik projects the horticulture and gardening project and wiki plants project it is rated high importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? wiki talks about it like it is essential and usuallly it is blow off as not so important.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? it needs revising but it of high importance
 * What are the article's strengths? it is concise and informative as it should be
 * How can the article be improved? it needs more content
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? it is poorly developed it need more content.

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.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting
 * }

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)