User:Sbrobbchavez/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)
 * Corbicula fluminea
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This animal is not only the subject of my graduate thesis, but the page on Wikipedia associated with it doesn't go into much depth and has some obvious flaws (and its short!).

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 does concisely package the main elements of Corbicula, however no description of what follows in the article is outlined (rather, a seemingly random spate of facts are offered). The lead seems to include bits of information that should be expanded upon on within sections below-but are not. Somehow, I feel it is both overly concise AND overly detailed-providing specifics which should be located elsewhere while not doing much to describe or summarize general attributes.

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
There is no information contained within the page which doesn't relate to the animal in question, however this may because there is little information to be had at all. Missing are up-to-date references to the latest literature about habitat selection, grazing habits, biological tolerances, etc.

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 there isn't much controversy surrounding these clams. The reader does not get a sense of any sort of agenda related to the information provided.

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
Some facts in the article are backed up by a reliable source, however others seem to be entirely anecdotal-ie the part in the lead which discusses the difficulty in differentiating C. fluminea from C. fluminalis. Most sources linked are outdated or will be soon-going back to the 1980s in some cases as well as lacking a robust body of cited references from the scientific literature. Certain weblinks are broken or missing.

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
I would not say the article is well written-no narrative emerges about the invasive clam and its origins, just lots of "stems" of information which seem unlinked crammed into the same spaces. A few incomplete sentences and grammatical errors as far as comma placement are present, while the article overall is very poorly organized. More sections are needed, as well as expansion/cleaning of the ones which are present.




 * 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
More images showing different habitat types and morphological traits would be helpful, as we only get a couple of pictures here. No maps showing distribution, for example. Images used appear to be the work of their contributors, which is good (but hard to verify the accuracy of). These could be better organized for visual appeal.

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
One lonely conversation from 2013 is in the talk section, regarding Corbicula's designation as an invasive. This article is part of a mollusk improvement project on Wikipedia, as well as having been classified as a "start," which leaves the door open for much improvement. Most of the conversation has to do with correctly classifying the animal, which surprisingly shares a tiny thread with our class content, however no one is discussing physiology or phylogeny as we would.

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
This is a poorly/underdeveloped article which I am definitely looking to improve. Classified as a "start," Wikipedia has signaled that major improvements are to be made here. The article's only real strength as far as I can tell is that it exists at all-many improvements in especially content, but also organization, visualization, and tone should be made.

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: