User:Vic.ubc/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.


 * Grimmia pulvinata: Grimmia pulvinata
 * I have chosen this article because Grimmia pulvinata is a moss, a topic that is covered in class.I chose this particular moss because it generally grows on concrete and rocks, which is a habitat for mosses that I am interested in.

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 is concise and clear, giving the common names of Grimmia pulvinata, what it is, and its general distribution. There isn't a description of the article's major sections, and it includes information that is not in the article, namely the common names for Grimmia pulvinata. However, I think these inclusions are acceptable in this context. The Lead is not overly detailed; it lacks detail. Overall I think the Lead can be expanded by adding better descriptions and more information.

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
The article's content is relevant to the topic, The content is generally up to date, with most citations being from 2017, save for a source from 2014 which has a broken link. None of the content that is present, however there seems to be a lot missing. The Characteristics section is very bare-bones, and would benefit on an expansion of characteristics including more specific defining features. The Habitat section as well as the Distribution section is also very generalized without much description; this section could also benefit from expansion. In a similar vein, the Ecological Role section is also lacking in content, and aside from it being a pioneer species, I think its interactions with other mosses as well as other effects it has on the environment would be a beneficial inclusion.

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
Overall this article is balanced and has a neutral tone, with facts being presented without slant or bias. There is no injection of opinion or anything approaching persuasion; in regards to tone and balance this article is well done.

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
The sources leave much to be desired, with a lot of them being from governmental websites and websites dedicated to flora. There does not seem to be much in the way of academic literature on the topic, as most of the sites are just compilations of general information about Grimmia pulvinata. There is one link that does not work at all. I think there is significant room for improvement when it comes to sources, more academic sources and links that work are needed.

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
This article is easy to follow along with, is quite clear, and is well sectioned. It is brief but very clear and easy to follow along with. There are no grammatical errors, and it is broken down into well-separated topics that are necessary for making the article clear. This aspect of the article is well-done.

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
The article includes a good image of Grimmia pulvinata with some clear identifying features such as the buried capsules. It is cited and is visually appealing. However, I think a helpful addition to this article would be to include more pictures of specific identifying characteristics.

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
There is not a conversation ongoing behind the scenes. It is rated a Start-class article and is part of WikiProject Plants, creating more botanical articles. The article is rated as Low importance. The article is a very surface-level overview of the general characteristics of Grimmia pulvinata, and is much less detailed in its description than as in class. The conversations behind the scenes is non-existent.

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
The article overall is of low importance and is incomplete. Its strengths are that is has an even tone, is easy to comprehend, and is well-structured with appropriate sections. The information it contains could be improved on by including academic sources, elaboration on the little information that is present, more photos, and it could benefit from a more robust conversation. Overall I think this article is poorly developed, with many important aspects missing from the article as stated above.

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: