User:Ptero-ADH/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: Fern
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

It is lacking in key areas with respect to how ferns reproduce and the consequences of these differences.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, it introduces a basic working definition for a fern


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Not really, some things are touched on but not all sections are directly addressed


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

yes.

Lead evaluation:
Good, but could use some organizational improvement

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The primary content issue is the lack of discussion about the major things that differentiate ferns from other lineages of plants. There are no details about the different kinds of reproductive systems that ferns utilize and the consequences of these. There is also no discussion of hybridization which is a major evolutionary force in ferns, more so than in other lineages. The Ecology section of the article is severely lacking in specificity and organization.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article seems to be neutral for the most part without any major biases. The lack of balance has more to do with content, with some areas appearing biased geographically due to incomplete information.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Sources and links work in all tested cases. Some areas are missing citations however. The article does a good job with the most recent updates to taxonomy and phylogenetics.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation:
The organization is somewhat poor, due to a lack of content to fill out headings and subheadings. I did not see grammatical errors, however, the flow of the main sections could use some work.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
Images are good for the most part, however, at least one image appears to be extraneous and not at all relevant to anything in the text. Most, if not all, of the pictures appear to be the author's own work. The captions could use some work in connecting to the text.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The talk page has some recent conversations regarding the definition of a 'true fern' as well as some conflict surrounding the proper taxonomic terminology. As these things are changing rapidly and are not always well-defined, disagreement is expected. The article's importance is rated as level-4 vital to Biology by Wikipedia, and 'Top Importance' by WikiProject:Plants. However, it currently has a grade of C.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
The article's overall status to me is incomplete. The article is strong in dealing with the taxonomic complexities of ferns. The article is weak in the ecology of ferns, and especially weak in considering reproduction. The article would improve substantially with organizational edits and content additions in the lacking areas. It is overall well concieved but mostly under 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: Talk:Fern