User:Salexander23/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: (link) Clade
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article to evaluate because our class has spent time learning about what a clade is, and I think definitions are important so that everyone is on the same page in regards to what a concept means.

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 is concise and gives a clear definition of the word clade, followed by a definition that is also clear. The contents box lists the major sections in the article, and a brief outline of the sections seems to mentioned in the introduction, although the sections are not mentioned by name in the lead. Some of the information listed in the lead isn't mentioned again in the rest of the article, but I think the lead is well written and isn't too detailed.

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 content is relevant for the article, as well as up to date, but I think that the authors could maybe include more information about what the TOL is for readers who may be less experienced with the terminology. Perhaps it could be featured under the terminology tab. Also the definition tab information is a little short.

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 is neutral, as it is mainly defining and describing a word unfamiliar to most people. The author does a good job mentioning different points of contention around different nomenclature, but does not appear to take a side as to which side of the disagreement they agree with.

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
The facts in the article all seem to be backed up, and relatively up to date. The most recent cited article was in 2016, however, I'm not sure that there have been any updates to the definition of a clade since then. Therefore, I believe that the sources are current enough to make the article reliable.

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 was well written, but I do think it is slightly problematic that the section on the "history of nomenclature and taxonomy" is longer than the section on the actual "definitions" on the world clade. The latter section was definitely too short, and I feel like more information was given in the introduction than in the actual article about the definition.

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?

The images are well-captioned and appear to follow copyright regulations. There is a nice mix of more scientific looking diagrams as well as more artistic images of phylogenetic trees.

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?

This article is part of a few WikiProjects about paleontology and different types of biology and is rated to be in "c class". There is a lot of criticism on the talk page about this article, but I feel as if the criticism made is very specific. Most people reading about clades on wikipedia just want to know the basics, therefore the information covered is serving its purpose. One person did mention that the images wouldn't work for color blind people because several are color coded, which I think is a valid argument. Similar characters in the past evolutionary discoveries to those studied in class are mentioned.

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 is certainly a good start to defining what a clade is. There definitely could be a better expanded upon definition under the definitions header. I think the article could also be improved by explaining more in depth about what exactly is the Tree of Life. The strengths of the article is the history section, because there is a lot fo information. I also don't think the wording is too confusing. I would say on a scale of 1 to 10, with one being complete, the article is a 6.5.

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: