User:Jocedye/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?

Evolutionary biology

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 article due to its relation to the class and my experience with this topic. This topic is the underlying foundation for all biology related fields. An understanding of this builds the foundation to learning about subfields within biology. This page was informative but did appear to be very basic. For an uninformed reader, this page would give them a somewhat basic understanding of evolutionary biology.

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 introductory section of this article is adequate. The introductory sentence does describe the article's topic but could be more clear and concise. The major sections of this article are not mentioned or discussed. The overarching theme of evolution is given but mainly in how it is applied to modern science today. The introduction did what it needed to but could have been a little more inclusive to the information that was given later in the article. Different fields of study are then discussed in relation to how they study evolution. This section gives a broad overview of how different scientific fields view and use evolution in their studies. Then, the different types of evolution were discussed. These were brief but made the point. For a reader wanting to know the bare minimum, this section gave them that. They consisted of a definition and an example. When discussing the mechanisms of evolution, it felt that the article did not explain how the mechanisms worked to evolve a species. It would have been helpful if the article gave more background and explanation with each definition. In the "History", "Evolutionary Developmental Biology", and "Phylogenetic Trees" sections, there is very little information with links to their main Wiki pages. It would be helpful to have a little more information to keep the reader from having to go search somewhere else. The "Homologs" section was very brief and needed more information. In the sections regarding the current research, broad topics are mentioned but no specific research is given. The drug resistance section took an opinionated approach to convince the reader the importance of finishing a round of antibiotics. There were several grammatical errors in this article. The sources were credible, however, some facts needed citations and better sourcing. While the article was clear and concise, the writing style could be more professional. The images needed better captioning describing what the picture was with a source and correct grammar and capitalization. The talk page did recognize the article as a WikiProject. It was rated as a C page. The article is overall very easy to read and understand. This article does need a facelift in precise facts and professionalism.