User:Thisfarbygrace/Evaluate an Article
 | 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]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit](I am a biologist and evaluating this article can make me contribute my knowledge to improve Wikipedia with respect to ecology)
Evaluate the article
[edit](Lead section: Article topic well defined with the definition of the article topic beginning with the article topic itself and in bold. The explanation of the lead was good but it could have been better as some aspect of the topic was briefly explained in the lead whiles others were not. Areas of microecology such as human gut microecology was briefly explained however, how microecology relates to biology, evolution, biodiversity and its application in the field of agriculture and biotechnology were not briefly explained here.
Content : The article does not possess detailed explanation of the various scope, areas and application of microecology ( such as evolution, exobiology, food microbiology, agriculture biotechnology, gut microbiology etc) mentioned in the lead section. Although the author talked about microecology in the urban context, it was also not detailed enough.
Tone and balance: The article talked more on gut microecology than the remaining aspect of microecology stated by the author in the lead section.
Sources and References: Some important statements made in this article lacks concrete evidence or reference backing them. Reference "1" does not reflect the available literature on the topic. Reference "3" not current. Few links that were checked were working.
Organization and Writing : Article is concise, clear and easy to read however, It is not well organized and lacks detailed explanation of the major areas stated in the lead section.For example, the author talked about the application of microecology in the field of medicine, agriculture, biotechnology and design but did not give detailed explanation on these. No grammatical error was detected in the article.
Images and Media: This article lacks images and media making it less appreciative by the reader.
Talk Page discussion : Article has been edited in terms of grammatical corrections, punctuation,deletion and insertion of of both in text citation and external references. Dead links that were provided by the writer has also been removed by some editors. Detailed information on some aspect has also been added to the article be some editors.
Overall Impression: The article is easy to understand however most aspects of the article were not deeply explained. No image or media was added to the article making it less appreciative to the reader. This article can be improved by providing detailed section of the scope, application etc. aspects of microecology stated in the lead. Also addition of well captioned and good images will enable the reader to understand the article very well. Overall, the article is underdeveloped and lacks some detailed information)