User:Popv!p/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A 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.

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? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

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?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia 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.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A 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.

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?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

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?

Images and Media

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?

Talk page discussion

The 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.

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?

Overall impressions

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?

Examples of good feedback

A 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.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

Sunflower sea star

regarding Pycnopodia helianthoides, a type of sea star found in pacific ocean throughout the coast of North America.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

Related to study material in a university course I am taking. Recommended by my ecology professor.

Evaluate the article

Overall Impressions

I think that the article is easy to understand for the average reader. The article gets to the point of most statements, however, this can make for some stunted sentences that don't flow well. Additionally this article is very USA centric, in many sections they exclusively discuss American populations, when much of the species range can also be found in Canada's waters. The article could likely be improved with a bit of copy editing and additional sources.

Content

In the Description section of the article, the Midgardia xandaros (another type of sea star) is mentioned, and its size and dimensions are discussed in more detail than necessary on the page considering their only relationship is both being large. It seems unnecessary and deviating from the subject of the article, the Sunflower Sea Star.
The Distribution and Habitat section is generally good, could potentially be improved from a graphic of their range, if such an image exists. Additionally in the diet section urchin barrens are mentioned, this seems relevant to the habitat section, but remains unmentioned here.
The first paragraph in the Diet section is well written and on topic. The second paragraph regarding its predators should likely be its own section with more information.
The Reproduction section is where I felt that some sentences felt stunted and ruined the flow, particularly the first two. Some copy editing here might be productive.
Conservation Efforts is an excellent section to have, and overall I like i's inclusion and the topics covered. This is however the section that feels the most USA centric. Perhaps some efforts being made in Canada if any could help with that. In the sub-section Threats, the first part discusses the important roll of Sunflower Sea Stars in the ecosystem, which seems like an odd place to put it and somewhat off topic. I think the information here is relevant to the page and should be included somewhere, but this place doesn't feel correct.

Tone

The tone of the article is consistent, and remains neutral throughout. Facts are presented without opinion and are for the most part relevant to the topic.

Images & Layout

the layout of the article is attractive, additional images or graphics might be beneficial to some points made in the article but it doesn't currently feel lacking. One image however is missing a description and I'm unsure of it's purpose (located in the bottom right of the article).