User:TLRX/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Geobotanical prospecting

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article to evaluate because it is an interesting combination of biology and earth science.

It matters because it is a relatively low cost and environmentally friendly method of prospecting that  could allow for the early detection of minerals in areas of interest (provided it is reliable).

My preliminary impression was that this article is very incomplete. There are only four references and no subsections or pictures.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead section:

There is a lead sentence but it does not adequately introduce the topic. The lead sentence is a little bit confusing as an example is introduced right away before the main definition of the topic is introduced.

The first paragraph does not introduce any further topics.

The lead paragraph discusses examples without explaining the topic enough.

Content:

The content included is relevant to the topic. But does not discuss enough details other than a few examples. It also mainly focusses on one topic with an insufficient spread of topics. It should include topics such as modern day uses of geobotanical prospecting (If there is any), reliability of this method of prospecting and other topics rather than just briefly mentioning many examples.

Tone and Balance:

The tone is neutral but the content itself is not balanced. There is an insufficient amount of topic covered to be considered balanced.

Sources and References:

There are a few sentences that need a citation but do not have one. The references are sparse (there are only four references for the whole article). The sources included are relevant and accurate but not complete i.e., there should be more references.

Organization and Writing quality:

The article is not very well written. From the first sentence (which includes an example in the middle of the definition of the main topic) the writing style is choppy and a bit confusing.

I did not notice any spelling errors or grammatical errors (just a confusing writing style).

There are no subsections. Each paragraph does introduce a new topic but all paragraphs except for one are less then three sentences. Because each paragraph is so short it is difficult to consider them subsections. There are many subsections that could have been included but were left out.

Images and Media:

There are no images or other media. But having some images of what each indicator plant looks like and the mineral they indicate for could really help emphasize the topic.

Talk Page Discussion:

There are currently no conversations going on on the talk page.

The article is part of three wiki projects but as stub-class and low importance in all three.

Overall Impressions:

The articles overall status is stub class and low importance.

The strengths of the article is that is addresses a topic that could be important if explained properly.

The article can be improved if more details are added to the existing topics and more diverse topics are added. Adding relevant images could also be impactful.

This article is poorly developed but the topic is interesting and there is room for growth and development.