User:Z.neff07/Evaluate an Article
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: (Transpiration)
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have a bit of knowledge about transpiration from botany courses and this seems like a mediocre article with strengths and weaknesses.
Lead
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Lead evaluation
[edit]The lead has an introductory sentence and it concisely and clearly describes transpiration. The lead contains descriptions relating to the article's major sections but doesn't mention the main sections by name. The lead doesn't include information not present in the article but could do a better job introducing the topic if it were more concise and structured; it's overly detailed.
Content
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Content evaluation
[edit]The article on transpiration contains content relevant to the topic and doesn't mention too much unnecessary information. The content is mostly up to date and most sources are recent within the last 10 years. The article could likely use more in depth content and more sections on the topic but there is not content that doesn't belong.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral?
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The article is neutral which is easy to do since this is a straightforward scientific topic, so there are no claims with biases toward certain positions. There are no over or underrepresented viewpoints and the article doesn't show any attempts at persuasion. It uses factual, cited information.
Sources and References
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]The majority of facts in this article are backed up by reliable secondary sources but there are a few places were citations are needed. The sources are thorough and reflect available literature relating to transpiration. The sources are mostly current and from papers published within the last 10 years but the article could likely benefit from updated sources. The links work and help give the reader background on where information is coming from.
Organization
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Organization evaluation
[edit]This article is mostly well-written but the introductory lead is not concise enough. There are no grammatical or spelling errors to distract from the points. There should likely be more main sections to go more in-depth in the topic.
Images and Media
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Images and media evaluation
[edit]The images included in the article help to enhance understanding and their captions also aid in understanding of the topic. Images in the article adhere to copyright regulations because credit is given. Although the images are helpful in conveying points of the article, they could be better positioned throughout the text instead of being jumbled up on one side.
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?
- 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?
Talk page evaluation
[edit]There is quite a bit of discussion on how to represent the topic and mentions of information that should be included in the article. The transpiration article is rated a level-4 vital article and is in the start-class. The way wikipedia discusses the topic is more in-depth in explaining methodology and application compared to what is covered in class.
Overall impressions
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Overall evaluation
[edit]The overall status is start-class but it has strengths of having good sources and relevant information. The organization can definitely be improved by adding more sections to break information into more organized bits. I this this article is poorly developed and needs quite a bit of editing but it is at a good start.
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: