User:OrangeTigerLilly/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article
[edit]![]() | 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](Provide a link to the article here.)
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit](Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I chose it because I like fish and I wanted to know what GloFish was when I saw the article. It matters because how would people know the history and marketing around GloFish so easily without this article? If it wasn't for this article people would have to do their own research at least with this they have a summary of what GloFish is and how it came about.
Evaluate the article
[edit](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.)
This article is a C-class article part of the "Aquarium Fishes articles" that is part of 3 WikiProjects. I do think that some of the images could be better as well because it doesn't really show how they look under ultraviolet lights. The "History" section doesn't say what jellyfish they take the GFP from and I think that is decently important to add. They also don't say when they got the rights to the market of fluorescent zebrafish. They should also link a few things like the websites for Taikong Corp or Yorktown Technologies as well as add a link to the GloFish website. They have them linked at the end but I feel that they should link them within the article more. They were up to date though on the article considering that the last edit was about a month ago. I read one of the last talk parts of this page and I agree with the fact that the page isn't entirely neutral and that also needs some work. Overall I think the article can use some work but it is just minor fixes here and there other than that I believe it is well organized and somewhat developed.