User:WriteMeMcGee/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: Yucca brevifolia
 * I chose this article as a good chunk of my life has been spent around Joshua Trees while living in the Mojave Desert. Yucca brevifolia are an iconic part of California's desert, and it was interesting to find that the article needed more work on it despite being a well-known plant. Additionally, I was just surprised that the Wikipedia article for this plant species was under its scientific name and not its common names, as other plants have been.

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 introductory sentence to the article is very straight to the point and briefly states that the Y. brevifolia is a plant species under the Yucca genus. It goes on to list common names of the plant, brought about by its similarities to trees. The brief descriptions of the major sections are a bit lacking when it comes to use and cultivation of the plant. It seems to stop at the conservation efforts. Overall, it's concise, but incomplete.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
Given that the article mentions an event that occurred August of this year, the article is mostly up-to-date. There is a good amount of information about how the common name of the plant came to be and how Y. brevifolia grows and develops, however little is said on the distribution and conservation status, as well as the cultural importance and uses of the plant.

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
A lot of the taxonomy is dedicated to the religious background of the common name and not much emphasis is given to its scientific name and why it was chosen, especially given that the name of the article is under the Yucca brevifolia and not Joshua Tree. There is more information on the Mormon settlers who are only rumored to have named the plant compared to the information available for the Native American cultures that actively used and cultivated Y. brevifolia.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are a decent amount of citations available, with a few sentences having more than one source. The links appear to be working. The older material don't have links attached to them, but that would be attributed to the age of the data. There are few sources from individuals that come from historically marginalized groups, however its mostly dominated by white authors. In fact the only source cited for the use of Y. brevifolia was written by a white man, Dr. Elbert Little. Upon doing research, Dr. Little is a decently established botanist, but not much is stated about his knowledge on Native American cultures.

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
The article has no grammar mistakes that have caught my attention. It's a very easy read as there is little to read about, and the article is well organized.

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 images do follow copyright regulations as three of the four images that have been uploaded to the article were uploaded by the copyright holder themselves. The fourth image is a public domain graphic on the distribution of the species. The images are decently captioned. However the layout isn't necessarily the best. I'd attribute this to the fact that the article is a bit short, but they serve their purpose which is to provide visual aids for the article.

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
Most of the talk page is about the origin of the common name Joshua Tree. The last discussion held on the thread was in 2016. This plant is in the WikiProjects for plants.

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
Overall, it's a good foundation for a potentially good article revision.

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: