User:Divsimar/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
Sources and ReferencesA Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]The topic is of particular interest to me. It has some interesting facts associated with it. The lead section does not summarize the article well and some subtopics within the article need more detail.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The first sentence is excessively long and slightly repetitive (mentioning the common name: pen shells, twice). The rest of the lead section only mentions two facts about the topic, missing many other important subtopics that form the body of the article. The two facts that are highlighted are done so in an overly detailed manner (eg. the numerical measurement of the height instead of mentioning that the topic is relatively large in size) and the latter of the two is not followed up in the article body, thus, is only mentioned in the lead section.
The description section contains information that should not be included like the mutualistic relationship with other organisms. This section does not mention enough descriptive qualities for a topic about species. The protection and extinction section is missing citations and should be integrated into the threats section as it covers similar information.
The sources used are relatively recent considering that there is not much publication on this topic.
The article is rated C and is part of a few WikiProjects of mid-low importance. There is not adequate information about any of the WikiProjects in this article. There are two edits to the talk page made within the past five years and are well informing: one is a direct observation by an editor that reinforces a concept mentioned in the article; and the other counters the conclusion made in the article and refers to alternative hypotheses.
Overall, the article needs work. The lead needs to be more encompassing and several sections need more content and supporting references. There is one section that is well done: threats, as it has sufficient content.