User:Swyndyl/Choose an Article

Article Selection 1

 * Polish language

Lead evaluation

 * Yes, the very first sentence of the article is a simple summary of the language itself. This follows what the article should be about.
 * More or less. It doesn't mention them by name, but does summarize sections like the history of the language and the geographic locations of the language.
 * I think it's more that the lead doesn't fully summarize the article. for example there is a section on dialects that is mostly absent from the lead.
 * Overall, the lead is quite concise, though I think it may need some more detail.

Content evaluation

 * Yes, the article has most everything one would need to know about Polish as a language. Anything from the vast amounts of loanwords to the pronunciation of it's unique characters is in the article.
 * For the most part yes, though rescently there has been much debate over how somethings should be gendered in Polish. For example, the word for businessman is "biznesmen." This is obviously a borrowed word and one would expect the word for businesswoman to be something like "bizneswomen" or even "bizneskobieta." This is not the case as the actual word is most often "biznesmenka", which has the diminutive "ka" ending. There is an ever growing idea that words such as this should follow a more uniform pattern or at the very least not make women seem more diminutive, like the word may imply.
 * Other than what was mentioned above, not particularly.

Tone and balance evaluation

 * Yes, a neutral tone is maintained throughout the article.
 * No, but in all fairness, I'm not sure that there could be much bias in an article such as this.
 * No, the only thing that might lead to over/under-representation would be the dialects of Polish, but they are represented in a very evenhanded way.
 * No, it does not.

Sources and references evaluation

 * Yes, nothing that I saw had been marked with a [citation needed] and all major claims lead to a relevant source listed at the bottom of the article.
 * Yes, the sources listed cover a wide breadth of the information that is available. Anything from history to phonetics is cited.
 * For the most part yes, but one source that was listed is from 1844, though this seems to be an article about loanwords and where those words came from (my Polish is a bit rusty though).
 * Yes, even the link from 1844 lead to a digital copy of the article, which from what I was able to understand, was kind of a neat read.

Organization evaluation

 * Yes it is very easy to read and clearly very well researched.
 * None that I noticed, but seeing as both English and Polish can be difficult languages in terms of spelling, I'm sure there are some that I missed.
 * Yes, it is organized very logically. It starts big with the history of Polish and works its way down to the grammar and pronunciations of certain special characters.

Images and media evaluation

 * Yes. Each section within the article has at least one picture that helps to show what the article is talking about. For example, the section on dialects has a map of where each dialect is most prevalent.
 * Yes. Each image in the article has a caption that mentions what the image is and why it is relevant to the article. For example, in the section on loanwords, there is an image of a handbag. The caption explains that the word for handbag, "torba" is borrowed from Turkish.
 * Yes, though I have to be honest, Wikipedia itself is not exactly the prettiest thing to look at (though this is not a critique on this particular article).

Talk page evaluation

 * There seems to be a lot of debate over the origins of many loanwords as well as the influences of other languages. There is also some debate on the classifications of sounds that Polish makes.
 * This article is rated as C-class and is a part of WikiProject Poland.

Overall evaluation

 * The article is listed as a level-4 vital article in Society.
 * The history of the language and how it relates to other Slavic languages is very strong in this article.
 * It seems that many people in the talk page think the IPA table for the language is incomplete and I tend to agree.
 * Overall, the article's status is fairly complete. There are a few, aforementioned things that ought to be added, but all in all, this is a good article.


 * Sources
 * Sources

Article Selection 2

 * Hedgehog

Article Evaluation
Lead Evaluation


 * Yes, the first sentence is an apt description of the animal.
 * Not really; it mostly just covers the animal in a broad sense.
 * No, but it seems to be lacking info from the article.
 * The lead is under-detailed.

Content Evaluation


 * Yes, the article does not stray from hedgehogs.
 * Yes, the content appears to be up to date.
 * There are a few places that need citations.

Tone and Balance Evaluation


 * The article maintains a neutral tone throughout.
 * Not really, but this seems hard to do in this case.
 * Owners' viewpoints might be underrepresented.
 * No, it does not.

Sources and References Evaluation


 * Not all claims are cited.
 * The available sources are, however, thorough.
 * The sources are current for the most part, but the oldest is from 1942.
 * Links do work.

Organization Evaluation


 * The article is clear and concise. It does not stray from hedgehogs.
 * No typos were particularly obvious/none were found.
 * The article is broken down logically.

Images and Media Evaluation


 * Images are included and are very helpful (as well as cute).
 * Images are well-captioned.
 * Image credit is given where due, no obvious copyright violations.
 * The images are laid out well.

Talk Page Evaluation


 * There are quite a number of conversations on this page. Anything from whether or not you can eat hedgehogs to their resistance to toxins.
 * The article is rated as C-Class and is part of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.

Overall Evaluation


 * Overall, the article seems to be okay. Needs some work on the citations though.
 * It is in a decent spot overall.


 * Sources
 * Sources

Article Selection 3

 * Molecular biology

Article Evaluation
Lead Evaluation


 * The lead is really only a sentence and does not introduce the other sections.
 * If anything, the lead is missing information.
 * The lead is overly concise.

Content Evaluation


 * The article seems to be up to date.
 * The content is up to date.
 * There does not seem to be missing information.

Tone and Balance Evaluation


 * A neutral tone is kept throughout.
 * There appears to be no bias.
 * All viewpoints involved are fairly represented.
 * Np persuasion is attempted.

Sources and References Evaluation


 * Facts are backed up by reliable sources and research.
 * Said sources are thorough and current.
 * Links are operable.

Organization Evaluation


 * The article is concise and things are explained well, despite this being a hard topic to understand.
 * No typos are apparent.
 * The article is well organized.

Images and Media Evaluation


 * Images are included that aide in understanding.
 * Said images are well-captioned to further aide in understanding.
 * All relevant citations of images are present.
 * The images are laid out very logically.

Talk Page Evaluation


 * There does not seem to be anything under the talk page. Maybe I'm missing something?
 * This article is rated as C-Class.

Overall Evaluation


 * Overall the article is well crafted, however the lack of conversation on the talk page is a bit worrisome.
 * The talk page is definitely a weakness.




 * Sources