User:Faith.n.vee/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?

Talk:Fertilisation

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 topic because I find it fascinating and important to understand for the basis of how life begins for new organisms. The article content seemed to contain good information about the topic, but the organization was a little messy.

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 section of this article on fertilization gives a well-detailed overview of the definition of fertilization and what it consists of. The article does however lack brief descriptions of what the major topic's mentioned throughout the article itself. If the lead section consisted more on the breakdown of what fertilization, why it's important, and how it plays a role in plants and animals the reader could easily navigate through the major ideas of it much easier. The tone of the article could use some improvement as it seems the leading section focuses a lot on different words fertilization is referred to as rather than the main point of what it actually is itself. In the talk section on Wikipedia there seems to be a lot of debating on whether it should be titled "Fertilization" or "Fertilisation", which comes off as quite contriversal and makes the article topic kind of confusing especially if a reader came across this article to find information. While the content of the article is very relevant as this is not something that has changed in a very long time, the majority of the sources seem to be outdated ranging from 1980s - early 2000s. There are a few newer article from 2018-2021 but in order to reassure the information is not outdated, it would be better to add in more recent sources. Overall, the flow of the article is quite organized in a manner that is easy to follow, the only suggestion to improving the breakdown flow would be to combine certain shorter sections into one instead of having a bunch of smaller sections broken up for every little part. The images included throughout the article provided excellent visuals of the content and the captions made the pictures easy to comprehend quickly. This article all together contains great detail and content, with just a few organizational fixes it could be an excellent article for any reader trying to learn about fertilization.