User:Pacanins22/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: Pitcher plant
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I've chosen this article to evaluate because I've always been interested in plants. I've worked on farms, retail nurseries and currently working for a non-profit, taking care of thousands of native plants. I chose pitcher plant because it is my favorite carnivorous plant!

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I find the first part of the first sentence to be a little odd, "Pitcher plants are several different carnivorous plants. . .", I feel that this could be worded differently. However the rest of the lead is a great summary of what a pitcher plant is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Indirectly, in the three sentences belonging to the lead, it does mention that there are different types, there is a form of feeding behavior and they consist of specialized leaves. The contents mention: Types, Feeding Behavior and Evolution of Form.
 * 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
I find the first part of the first sentence to be a little odd, "Pitcher plants are several different carnivorous plants...," this could be worded differently. Such as, "Carnivorous plants contain several different types of pitcher plants." This will help lead the contents on the descriptions of the various species of pitcher plants. The lead only consists of three sentences, but it does simply describe that there are different types of pitcher plants, they have a specialized feeding behavior and they consist of specialized leaves. The contents mention types, feeding behavior and evolution of form. All of which are included in the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the content does not stray from the topic of pitcher plants.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, last updated January 15th, 2020. There are resources from 1998-2012, with one resource from 1911.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I believe there is one subject that could be added to this article. There is a type of spider that uses pitcher plants to "fish" the insects out of the pitcher to eat. I am not sure if this is a parasitic or symbiotic relationship.

Content evaluation
In this article, the content does not stray away from the topic of pitcher plants. The article describes the different species of pitcher plants, their feeding behaviors and a brief description of their evolutionary history. The article contains resources ranging from 1998-2012, with one resource from 1911. The last time this article was updated was January 15th, 2020. There is one subject I believe is missing from this article. There is a type of spider that uses pitcher plants to "fish" out the insects from the pitcher plant to eat. I am not sure if this is a parasitic or symbiotic relationship. Definitely something worth looking into and adding.

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?


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Kind of. Most paragraphs have at least one reference. There are two paragraphs that do not have references but do have working links to relevant pages.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
Most facts are backed up by reliable secondary sources. Most paragraphs have at least one references, but there are two paragraphs that do not have any. However, they do include relevant working links.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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.

Organization evaluation
The article is well-written, it is straight to the point with its facts, easy to read. I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors within the article. There are three main sections, that are very specific and stay on topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, there are multiple pictures of the different species, a scanning electron micrograph of a pitcher's inner surface and botanical drawings that detail their glands and epidermis.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, they have the species name of the pitcher plant in each picture with working links and detailed descriptions of the drawing and micrograph.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, either the work is free or is uploaded by the owner.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not too bad. Kind of in clumps on one side and then another clump in the middle of the article.

Images and media evaluation
There are multiple pictures of the different species of pitcher plants, including a micrograph and a botanical drawing. Each picture has the species name along with working links relevant to the genus/family. The micrograph details of the inner surface of the pitcher plant and the botanical drawing presents their glands and epidermis. All the work adhere's to the Wikipedia's copyright regulations. It is either public work or is uploaded by the picture's owner. The pictures aren't arranged in a very appealing way, not well balanced within the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? It is acting more like a "how to care for my plant" forum. Asking advice on how to save one's dying pitcher plant, and how to prune. Which they are reminded that Wikipedia is not a forum page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C-Class, Hight-Importance. WikiProject Plants, WikiProject Carnivorous Plants.
 * 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 for this article looks to be more of a forum than suggestions for page. Some people are asking for advice on how to care for their personal pitcher plants. They are reminded a couple of times that Wikipedia is not an advice forum. There are some good suggestions for this page, such as the red crab spider that eats the insects within the pitcher plant, the cause of their evolutionary changes, and New World vs. Old World species. These topics would be great to add to the article. The article is C-Class, rated High-Importance and is part of the WikiProject Carnivorous Plants.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? C-Class, High-Importance.
 * What are the article's strengths? It has the general information covered but is still missing important information.
 * How can the article be improved? Adding New World Vs Old World species, adding more detailed information in the Evolution of Form content, and adding any symbiotic or parasitic relationships.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? For basic information it is well-developed. There are more interesting topics it could detail.

Overall evaluation
The article is rated C-Class, High-Importance. It does cover the general information but still lacks important information. The article could be improved by adding the New World Vs. Old World species, adding more detailed information under the Evolution of Form, and by adding any symbiotic or parasitic relationships it has with other species.

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: