User:Magsrb/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]I chose to evaluate this article because it is related to the Invertebrate Zoology course; while not being a specific animal, it's an interesting theory that I've wanted to learn more about for some time. It's also become very popular on the internet, and the crossover between mainstream entertainment and scientific theory is intriguing because it both introduces the general public to organismic biology and is capable of spreading misinformation.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The lead is composed of a couple sentences. The introductory sentence is clear and concise, but there could be more elaboration in the lead in regards to the major sections of the article; possibly mention which general type "non-crab crustaceans" have undergone carcinisation and how they compare to the "true crab". The definition section could then elaborate more on how the definition or perception of carcinised morphology evolves in the literature.
The article is well-organized, and flows well. The included pictures are important and aid the carcinised morphology. I appreciate that the "Examples" suggestion begins with an overview of carcinised species, and then provides additional information on specific examples. The image of the porcelain crab could be used farther down in the subsection discussing the traits of hypercarcinisation in Examples. The first paragraph of the "Definitions of carcinised morphology" could use quotation marks around the included quote.
The second paragraph underneath "Selective Pressures and Benefits" discussing the Anomura could be consolidated into the "Examples" heading. The parts of Coconut Crabs subsection describing its specific crab-like features could also be moved into the "Examples" section, since it is mentioned in the bullet points of the examples but not elaborated upon. This reorganization would allow for all depicted instances of carcinisation underneath one major section, and the theory surrounding carcinisation to be underneath its own section (although the coconut crab's potential terrestrial benefits from carcinisation are still relevant and can be used as an example).
Overall, this article is a brief, effective, and professional summary of carcinisation that can be understood by any interested person regardless of experience. The sources are diverse and reputable. This is a complete and well-developed article that could benefit simply by slightly reorganizing the existing content.