User:Victotp1/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The article that I evaluated is called Psychodidae.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate based on the species that were included on the Natural History of Orange County website. As I was viewing this website, I was drawn to the interesting name "bathroom fly" and realized that these were the same tiny flies that I have seen in my bathroom before. Having seen these tiny flies in my bathroom before and not knowing exactly what they were, I was eager to learn more about these flies. The article that I have chosen is the first article that I saw when searching the species name, Psychodidae.

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 evaluation:

My first impression from the lead section was that it contained all the necessary components that are required for a successful lead section. The lead section was concise and provided a reasonable overview for the remainder of the article. The lead section did not have any unnecessary extraneous information and had an appropriate amount of details.

Content evaluation:

The content of this article was definitely relevant to the topic and was up-to-date. I could see from the editing history that this article was edited very recently on 12 March 2021. I found it interesting though how there were only three main content sections: life cycle, health effects, and taxonomy. I found the life cycle content to be the most informative because it was very thorough and provided a lot of detail. In comparison, the health effects section did not nearly have as much information, which may have been due to lack of information. If I were to make any evaluation about the content, it would have been that the information in the health effects section was not proportional to the life cycle information, so the article may not be very balanced.

Tone and balance evaluation:

In my opinion, this article was written in a neutral point of view. I did not notice that there were any claims that were biased in one direction. From my perspective, this article seemed like it was written mainly for the purposes of education and did not seem like a persuasive piece that was taking one side.

Sources and references evaluation:

The sources seem to be reasonable for what was presented in this particular article. I did click on a couple links and they all worked. One thing I did notice was that not all the sources were current, as one source was from 1983. It does seem that the sources are from a variety of reliable sources. I did notice that some of the sources are also from peer reviewed academic journals which is great for this material.

Organization and writing quality evaluation:

This article was well written and had great organization. I did not notice any major grammatical or spelling errors.

Images and Media evaluation:

This article did contain images that were well captioned and beneficial to my understanding of the topic. I do think it would have been helpful to include even more images and media to enhance understanding of this particular species. A visual diagram of the life cycle would have been helpful since a lot of the text was about the life cycle of this species.

Talk page discussion evaluation:

This was my first time examining the talk page of an article. I found an interesting discussion about removing a section that was originally included in the article. I was surprised to see how colloquially these suggestions were made in a somewhat harsh tone. It seems like the author of this article did view the talk page, because that section was not included in the article that I was able to review.

Overall impressions:

My overall impressions are that this article was concise, provided valuable information, and appropriately informative for a Wikipedia article. The articles strength is how concisely the material is presented. As a reader, I also enjoyed how much detail was presented in this article while not feeling bogged down by extraneous details. All the information in this article felt relevant to the topic and furthering my understanding of the topic. This article can be improved by balancing the content in the health effects section, it felt a little brief. Also, considering adding more sections about this species would also be beneficial. Because of the lack of additional content, this article may be considered a bit underdeveloped. But overall, the content that is published on the article so far is fully developed because I did not see any major spelling or grammatical issues while evaluating this article.