User:OlsonEEB4611/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.


 * Name of article: Clarkia xantiana
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Practice for school project involving editing a Wikipedia page, interning in a lab studying speciation and divergent mating systems present in Clarkia xantiana with subspecies xantiana and parviflora.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * Matches template set by Projects Plants, and includes taxon in bold and italics. Describes the plant as an annual herb. Includes relevant common name. Description of Range likely serves with only mention of being endemic to California. Description of plants characteristics is much too descriptive for the introduction and can be moved to a separate section. Last sentence at time of writing of January 31, 2020 may be too descriptive and technical too go without a link to relevant page descriptions.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * Only Lead is present but sections of the introduction could split into separate sections


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * Article is neutral, no bias.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * Sources are solely image galleries.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * Article can be split into further sections with existing information - primarily an additional Description and Range section. But additional information would improve the ability to split the article.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * Image is correctly identified Clarkia xantania, ssp. xantania
 * Another image that could be included is an image of Clarkia xantania, ssp. parviflora- which has much smaller flowers.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * None,
 * Article is rated Low-importance in WikiProject Plants
 * Article is classified as a stub


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * Lab research on Clarkia xantania speciation and range change with climate change has been occurring in the Moeller Lab at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. https://moellerlab.wordpress.com/
 * Some information from lab research could serve as sources of further expansion on this wiki article, most prevalently the expansion of the article to include subdivisions of xantiana and parviflora as outcrossing and self-fertilizing species. This could expand into discussion on Ecology due to the differing mating systems and pollinator interactions of the subspecies.


 * 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?

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: