User:Raspberrymint/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Sunflower sea star

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because we've been talking about the sunflower sea star in class. My preliminary impression was that it was a well fleshed-out page that needed very little editing, if any. The page is well thought out with well-cited info.

Evaluate the article
The lead of this page is concise, and goes over each section with a sentence. The introductory sentence is also well-written. There are a few grammatical errors, but all the content of the lead is good.

All of the content belongs and is not out of place. It's all relevant and up to date.

Information is all neutral, there is no persuasion. Every claim, especially about the conservation of the sea star, is backed up with citations. Nothing is overrepresented.

The sources are current and thorough, and the links that I checked work.

The article is clear and concise with few grammatical errors and well-organized into easy-to-read sections.

There is a caption missing on one picture, but the images are laid out well and provide good visuals of the sunflower sea star.

The article is currently rated as C-class, and conversations are about the use of images of the wrong sea star, and additions to the article. There is also a mention of a sources that are not reliable.

As a whole, more information can be added to this article. However, it covers the information available about the sunflower sea star well, and is cited properly. The main improvements necessary would be minor grammar fixes and adding more information on the sunflower sea star, especially in relation to its conservation status as it changes.