User:16mslack/Evaluate an Article
Appearance
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: