User:Smiley.Rileigh/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]This article has minimal information regarding the species. It only briefly describes what it looks like and where it is typically located and does not have much, if any, information on topics such as taxonomy, possible uses, etc., though it is ranked as being somewhat important.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead Section: The lead section is practically non-existent with very little information.
Content: Though the content in this article is relevant, it is severely lacking content as there is about one small paragraph of information on the entire page, which almost exclusively contains facts about where the plant is located and that it attracts pollinators.
Tone and Balance: The tone of the article is neutral; it is not debatable.
Sources and References: Not many sources were cited and the ones that were actually had more information than the wiki article does. There could also be better quality sources to site from.
Organization and Writing Quality: The writing is clear and easy to follow, however, there just in not much to follow.
Images and Media: The article does include two quality photos of the plant species.
Talk Page Discussion: There is absolutely nothing in the talk pages between previous editors.
Overall Impressions: This article is ranked as a stub-class with mid-importance. The article could be improved with better quality sources, more information in general because this article is quite underdeveloped.