User:RileyD101/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Cordyceps - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I think fungus are interesting. They aren't exactly plants, and they aren't exactly animals. They can have interesting behavior and are just cool to learn about. I heard about cordyceps from a video game and thought the concept was extremely cool, if a little macabre. I chose this specific article on cordyceps because it is lacking and could use more information and better formatting to beef it up and really give the fungus the attention it deserves.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of the article is repetitive and does not engage well. There is a lot of information mentioned in the article, however practically none of it is expanded upon or explained properly. It reads very choppy, like the writer is trying to throw as much information at the reader as possible without taking the time to make sure the reader can understand it. The Taxonomy section, for example, tells the reader about the different subgenus of cordyceps. What it does not do is present this information in an organized manner, thus making the paragraph confusing to read and the information difficult to absorb. The Biology section of the article leaves even more to be desired. Mentioning that cordyceps can take a host but never explaining that the hosts are insects. They also do a poor job of explaining the process of cordyceps taking over a host. There is a popular culture section that could have been better implemented into the article and placing it at the end makes the information seem irrelevant, or at the very least an afterthought. Overall, the content of the article is relevant and up to date, it just needs to be organized better and expanded upon. The writer did a good job in keeping a neutral tone throughout the article, simply stating information as it is. Some of the sources are older, over two decades, so those will need to be updated with the relevant information. The links to these sources work, so the information can be tied back to somewhat reliable sources, considering their age. The images in the article are mostly relevant. The talk page of this article discusses many of the grievances I have previously written. This article is rated a C, so it could definitely use some work.