User:Averyyrose/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 thought it was interesting but it's a short article and is likely missing some crucial information.
Evaluate the article[edit]
The leading paragraph is very well written and engaging with just the right amount of information. The content of the article is slightly redundant in parts as there seems to be a lot of repeating of the same information just to lengthen the article. I would like for there to be a section with further information about the impacts of these structures on their surrounding environments and if they have significant importance to their ecosystem. The tone is neutral and the sources and references are legitimate but there are few of them which is likely why there is such little information on this page. The writing is professional but could use some fine tuning to mitigate that redundancy. There is an incredibly helpful gif which was a very good touch to use as a visual assistant. From what I can tell from the talk page there has been very little editing done on this article in 10 years and therefore this could use an update.