User:Paskowsw/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Madrepora oculata

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate the article about the zig-zag coral because it is a deep sea coral with a seemingly underdeveloped Wikipedia page.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section


 * introductory sentence provides a concise overview of the articles topic.
 * does not include description of major sections
 * lead does not contain any information not present in article
 * lead is concise

Content


 * content ins relevant to topic
 * it seems the article has not been edited since 2018
 * many details about the coral, including calcification and respiration, are not included within the article
 * the article does not deal withe one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, nor does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations

Tone and Balance


 * this article is neutral
 * there seem to be no heavily biased claims
 * article does not attempt to persuade, nor are there fringe viewpoints
 * viewpoints do not seem to be over nor under represented

Sources and References


 * all facts are cited in references
 * the references seem to be thorough 2009
 * there is a lack of diversity in the spectrum of authors of these sources
 * better and more current sources are currently available
 * most links work, some do not

Organization and Writing Quality


 * article is clear and concise
 * no grammatical/spelling errors observed
 * article is well organized, but not detailed enough

Images and Media


 * One image is included, but more would make the article more engaging for readers. Additionally, it would give the reader a better understanding for what they are reading about.
 * image is well captions
 * image does not have source
 * laid out in appealing way

Talk Page Discussion


 * very few talk page posts
 * seems like there were 2 editors in 2009 and one in 2018
 * pretty much no dialogue on talk page

Overall impressions


 * The article contains some important information, but is missing many details about the species.
 * The article's strength is being concise, but this comes with lack of detail which is the articles biggest flaw.
 * I would consider this article underdeveloped.