User:FloppingFish/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A 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.

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? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

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?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia 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.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A 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.

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?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

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?

Images and Media

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?

Talk page discussion

The 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.

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?

Overall impressions

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?

Examples of good feedback

A 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.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

(Provide a link to the article here.) Article - Siphonophorae

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 because I am quite interested in siphonophores and may be researching one in my semester project. Siphonophorae matters because it is a very unique order in marine life since the species in it (over 170) are colonies of zooids (polyps and medusoids) which often coalesce into beautiful, long tendril-looking shapes. My preliminary impression of the article was that it was very well put together and the picture on the heading (which showed several siphonophores) was very beautiful and made me want to read more about siphonophores.

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 - The first sentence clearly defines the taxonomic definition of Siphonophorae and the subsequent paragraph gives accurate insight on what they actually are. It is concise and gets to the point while also piquing interest.

Content - The content was well-organized and all relevant to the topic. Also the content is up-to-date as most of the articles cited are in the last decade or so.

Tone and Balance - The article is written in neutral form and there is no issue with under/over-representation of views since it is a relatively straightforward topic.

Sources and References - The links do work well and show that the sources are current and represent a diverse spectrum of authors. As mentioned above the sources are current and up-to-date and I don't think any additional sources are needed.

Organization and writing quality - The article is grammatically correct and easy to read.

Images and Media - The images are very well-placed, follow copyright laws, and are relevant to the topic. The pictures help the reader visualize a very complicated organism.

Talk Page Discussion - It was interesting to see the Talk page as this specific article was involved with two course assignments (potentially former BC students) and showed the dialogue between certain authors in regards to what they wanted to see added to the article and also criticisms of certain aspects of the article. This article talks more about new sources and species sightings than how we would probably discuss this topic in class. This article is part of two Wiki Projects (Wiki Animals and Wiki Marine Life).

Overall impressions - The status of the article is level 5-vital in Biology, Animals. It calls for improvement if possible. Personally, I think the article is very strong in every aspect. It mentions the discovery history of Siphonophores, describes their bioluminescence, reproduction, feeding patterns, etc. So much information is on the article but the sub-headings make it easier to navigate so that if you only came for a certain thing you can easily find it. I genuinely don't know what else could improve this article, perhaps a couple more pictures (although they are rare and perhaps some are copyrighted) but that's not really necessary. In conclusion, this is a very well-developed article.