User:Spectral099/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: Viral eukaryogenesis
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. It was listed under the wikiproject evolutionary biology as needing assessment.

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 introductory sentence explains what the topic is. There isn't really a description of the article's major sections, and there is a sentence on criticisms of the hypothesis in the Lead that isn't addressed in the rest of the article.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content of the article is relevant, with a section explaining the hypothesis and evidence supporting it, and a section explaining the implications of the hypothesis. There is not a section addressing criticisms or alternate hypotheses, which is mentioned in the Lead.

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 mostly addresses evidence supporting the theory and only has a few sentences scattered within the text calling it controversial or saying a different hypothesis is more probable. I think it would be more helpful to have a section dedicated to criticisms, alternate hypotheses, and evidence that does not support the hypothesis.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources seem to be current, and the links I checked worked. The Implications section contains no sources, it is unclear if these implications are from a paper or just thought of by whoever wrote the page.

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 very technical but it is clear. I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors. I think the organization could be broken down further, possibly separating the Hypothesis section into a section explaining the hypothesis and a section explaining the evidence supporting the hypothesis. I would also include a section on criticisms or alternate hypotheses, since that is briefly mentioned in the Lead.

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
There are no images.

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
This article is part of three wikiprojects: Molecular and Cell Biology, Viruses, and Evolutionary Biology. It is rated as "start" class quality. Most of the discussion is similar to what I was thinking, that there should be a criticisms section or section on how widely accepted the theory is. It also looks like it was written mostly by people who are not experts on the subject, so there are some questions about what the study means.

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
Overall I agree that this article is a start, but needs to be expanded and reorganized. There is a lot of information about the topic, but it could be made easier to read by splitting up the text into more sections, and more balanced by adding a section on criticisms or alternate hypotheses.

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: