User:Ricky Perryman/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.


 * Bdelloidea: Bdelloidea
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because we spent some time in class talking about what they are and how they reproduce. These organisms are quite fascinating to me.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The Lead's introductory sentence is very clear and concise in describing what bdelloid rotifers are. However, it does not include a brief description of each section that comes later in the article. The Lead includes information that is in the rest of the article, but also information that isn't. The Lead is not overly detailed at all. It is an appropriate length.

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?

Content evaluation
The article's content is directly related to the topic. It is entirely focused on information regarding bdelloid rotifers. The content is up-to-date, due to the biology of the organism not changing since it was written. There is no missing content or content that is out-of-place.

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
This article is 100% neutral. There is no side to be taken, since it is simply describing biological facts about an organism. There are no heavily biased claims. There also aren't any viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented. There is no persuasion present in this piece.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
This article is backed up with many sources that are listed in the "References" section. The sources reflect a large amount of literature regarding facts about bdelloid rotifers. The sources are up-to-date with the information presented in the article. I checked a few links and they worked, including this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3426538/

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 article is certainly well-written. It does not ramble and presents information in a clear, concise manner. There were no spelling or grammar mistakes that I could find in the article. The article was very well-organized into sections that were easy to find, including "Morphology" and "Reproduction."

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
The article includes three images throughout it, while also including an addition five in the "Gallery" section. These images definitely help with understanding the topic and are well-captioned. They are cited properly and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The images present in the body of the article are positioned all the way to the right next to corresponding text. This is not the most visually appealing structure, however.

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
Talks about updating the article occurred in 2014. It has since been added to. It has been rated Start-Class and Mid-Importance on the rating scale. This article is part of WikiProject Animals. This Wikipedia article differs from what we discussed because it goes into more depth of bdelloid rotifers than what we talked about in class. Pretty much all biological aspects of this organism are mentioned in this article, while we mainly talked about reproduction.

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
I think this article has a good overall status. The article's strengths are providing information in a concise way with plenty of sources. However, it may be able to be improved by being a little more descriptive and providing even more detail. The article is slightly underdeveloped and could use some more information to increase its length.

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: