Jump to content

User:16mslack/Evaluate an Article

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evaluate an article

[edit]

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

  • Name of article: Talk:Algae
  • Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Algae has many impacts on humans and I was curious to see what the general consensus on Algae was.

Lead

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
    • Yes.
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
    • Yes, there are quick links to the various main topics discussed within the article.
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
    • Discussions of other sources takes place with links to those sources. So information is indirectly given.
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
    • The first little paragraph is concise, but seems to run on just a little long. I would probably add a little of what is stated to the other sections.

Lead evaluation

[edit]

Content

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
    • All of the content is relevant to the topic, yes.
  • Is the content up-to-date?
    • Much of this article's contents are edited within the last 5 years at least so I would say that it is up-to-date.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
    • The article seems very well rounded and all information is relevant to the topic.

Content evaluation

[edit]

Not as much content as I was expecting. Many links to other Algae articles, however, so maybe you would need to be more specific when using Wikipedia as your source of info.

Tone and Balance

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Is the article neutral?
    • The Article does seem balanced to me. There is not just one user dominating the article.
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
    • No, all of the different sections seem to be very neutral if biased at all.
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
    • the physiology and relationship to land plant sections seem to be very short. While sections such as the classification seem to be very complex.
  • Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
    • Not that I noticed.

Tone and balance evaluation

[edit]

Sources and References

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
    • There are a plethora of cited sources to many universities and scholarly articles so I would say yes.
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
    • Yes, there is a direct link to all other articles referenced.
  • Are the sources current?
    • Most sources are within the last 10 years and studies of marine biology is rather new to the equation so yes.
  • Check a few links. Do they work?
    • All links that I clicked on worked.

Sources and references evaluation

[edit]

Organization

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
    • Very concise, easy to read. I enjoyed it.
  • Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
    • Properly spell checked. The talk page not so much, but the actual page is well written.
  • Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
    • All topics are discussed only in their designated sections.

Organization evaluation

[edit]

Images and Media

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
    • When available yes. Good pictures too, not fuzzy or confusing to look at.
  • Are images well-captioned?
    • Yes.
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
    • Yes.
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
    • Very easy to see why they are relevant to the sections.

Images and media evaluation

[edit]

Checking the talk page

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
    • People curious about some of the sources concerning books that are used as references. Otherwise not much.
  • How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
    • I do not see a rating, but it is part of a wikiproject.
  • How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
    • We haven't really discussed Algae in class yet, but it seems to be a brief overview of the algae, rather than how we go into more detail with various bacteria.

Talk page evaluation

[edit]

Overall impressions

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • What is the article's overall status?
    • The article is good.
  • What are the article's strengths?
    • I would say that the strength is very obviously the characterizing of Algae.
  • How can the article be improved?
    • I would add more to even out the sections rather than have some very long and some very short sections.
  • How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
    • There have been many revisions and past versions to this article so I would say that it is very well developed.

Overall evaluation

[edit]

Optional activity

[edit]
  • Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~~~~

  • Link to feedback: