Jump to content

User:RealUser1/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: Vitelline membrane
  • Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
    • This article is about an interesting topic, however the article itself is not very comprehensive.

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?
    • No, however there are not major sections
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
    • No, due to there not being any other sections to the article
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
    • It is concise

Lead evaluation

[edit]

Content

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
    • Yes
  • Is the content up-to-date?
    • Unknown, however only one source is used (Gray's Anatomy) so it does not include information that could be found in various primary sources
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
    • More content could be added about different organisms and history of discovery using further information from various primary/secondary sources
  • Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
    • No

Content evaluation

[edit]

Tone and Balance

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Is the article neutral?
    • Yes
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
    • No
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
    • No
  • Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
    • No

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?
    • Yes
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
    • Detailed, but not comprehensive
  • Are the sources current?
    • Somewhat (Gray's Anatomy)
  • Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
    • No
  • Check a few links. Do they work?
    • Yes

Sources and references evaluation

[edit]

Organization

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
    • Concise: Yes
    • Clear: Yes
    • Easy to read: Not necessarily due to the academic jargon being used
  • Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
    • No
  • Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
    • N/A - there are no sections to this article

Organization evaluation

[edit]

Images and Media

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
    • No
  • Are images well-captioned?
    • N/A - no images
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
    • N/A - no images
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
    • N/A - no images

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?
    • No conversations
  • How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
    • Rated as a stub
    • Part of the Animal Anatomy WikiProject
  • How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
    • Similar to BIOL 330

Talk page evaluation

[edit]

Overall impressions

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • What is the article's overall status?
    • Stub
  • What are the article's strengths?
    • Compact and succinct
  • How can the article be improved?
    • Needs more diversity of information (eg. more sections)
  • How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
    • Underdeveloped (stub)

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: