User:Mer0814/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?

The Tardigrade article

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 have an interest in tardigrades, which are microscopic organisms known for their hardiness in many harsh environments. The article itself looks well informed and educational, however i see a few spots that are without citations.

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.)

The lead starts out very strongly, its well linked, and does a good job summarizing and introducing the rest of the article. The second paragraph does not have any citations, but instead does a good job of pointing out a common perspective while maintaining an unbiased and objective tone. The rest of the introduction is very informative and provides a good overview for the rest of the article.

The general content of the article remains informative, but there are a few things that could use some more detail. For example, the article briefly mentions that adult tardigrades of the same species have the same number of cells, and notes the general count of the cells, but does not go into much detail about why this is significant. Additionally, they mention the lack of nephridia, but do not go into much detail about the significance. The sources seem reputable, but a few of them were used many times for a lot of information, so perhaps some more diversity citation-wise would be nice. I wish they discussed the tardigrades tolerance to environmental toxins some more. The only notable thing they mentioned here wasn't confirmed information, which might be better if coupled with some more solid and reputable information. There is some information throughout the article that sort of states something, and then immediately states it as unreliable information, or that it was later proven wrong.

The pictures used to illustrate the diversity of tardigrades is done well, and the photos of the reconstructions of tardigrades are a nice touch. Additionally the older representations of tardigrades demonstrate well how the information on them has changed over time.

It was interesting reading through the talk page and seeing the discourse on the pop culture references. I also wondered about its significance. I feel as though if the article is labeled as high-importance, its likely popular. Also tardigrades are relatively popular pop-culture wise, so it could be good to add this information to draw the interest of a reader who might not be as interested in the sometimes complicated biological and taxonomical information.

The information about their tolerances under the physiology section and throughout some other parts of the article get a little bit repetitive. Especially information about their radiation, temperature, and dessication tolerance could be condensed a little bit to make the article more concise.