User:SpiralOut KeepGoing/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: Albugo
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate:
 * I have never heard of this class of organism and am also taking a class on mycology. Fungi (and psuedofungi) are interesting to me.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. The first sentence does describe Albugo as plant parasites, but then later in the lead it describes them as only some being plant parasites. This is inconsistent.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, they are listed under the Contents Box and relates to the summary described in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No. Everything included in the lead is described and gone-over in the main body of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is short and to the point, as any summary should be.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes - The content contained describes different aspects of the genus and is overall informative.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Other than 1 reference from 1990 concerning the overall genus and discovery/etc. and another from 2008 regarding fighting the infection of Albugo on plants, every other citation is from 2018 and relevent to the article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, everything seems relevant

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article stays neutral and informative throughout. I paid particular attention to the "Management" section since this genus could be pathogenic to many agricultural crops.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * None at all.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Other than more clarification on which are specifically pathogenic or if they are all pathogenic, no.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No. It is very informative and stayed neutral throughout.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes. Many of the sites are directly in support of all information throughout the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Unsure if they reflect all available literature as they are only 6 sources, so there could be more information.
 * Are the sources current?
 * All except a few which seem to be used for general information are within a year and have been updated in the article itself.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes. All links attached to the article works.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I noticed, although some of the terms used for the latin naming of species and other related genus' i'm unsure of.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. The flow is very consise as should be in a general information article.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, but there are only 2, one of which is hard to understand. More pictures of different plants infected with Albugo and closer images of what the infection looks like would be nice.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, full explanations are included under both pictures.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, but again there are only 2.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is only 1 comment in the talk section describing issues with the article. The claim here being the article seems to combine the family Albuginacaea and the genus Albugo, which is where some of the inconsistent information I discussed earlier would be.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article seems to be rated as C-Class on the quality scale and is a part of both the WikiProject Fungi and WikiProject Microbiology
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not discussed this specific genus of organism in class but I have discussed other pathogenic fungi and psuedofungi in another class I am currently taking from Dr. HilBig at Weber State University. The information provided throughout the article seems consistent in how a fungal pathogen should be described.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Low-importance rating on both WikiProject Microbiology and WikiProject Fungi
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * General information
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More pictures and more concise and detailed information
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say underdeveloped. Due to the shortness and conciseness of not only the lead but also each section in the body of the article, more information is needed to further understand this (psuedo)fungi.

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 — ~ - I referenced the beginning statement that states all within this family are pathogenic to plants and the inconsistency that comes afterwards.


 * Link to feedback: Talk:Albugo