User:CalmPeach/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

Ecology

I chose this article to evaluate because I have taken Ecology and Evolution, so I know quite a bit from that class. I also thought it could relate to microbiology because we are learning about microbes and how they work, which we all know that microbes are everywhere and they affect all our lives. I do think that this article can help us all understand how ecology works, and it should be something that we all learn about. Just looking through this article, I can tell that it has a lot of good information, so it will be perfect for an evaluation.

Lead Section

The lead section does include an introductory sentence to talk about what Ecology is and how it can pertain to every day life. However, the section doesn't have an area to talk about the sections it has, but it does say what Ecology can be related to. From what I can tell, there isn't any information in the introduction that isn't in the rest of the article, but there is way too much information in the lead. The lead is a little overwhelming with how much information there is since there are too many links that make me lose my focus.

Content

The content is relavent to the topic, and there is a lot of good information for the reader to learn. The first section has the most information and it contains a lot of the basic information needed for learning about this subject. A lot of information in the article is from the 1950s to the early 2000s, so there is a lot of outdated information but there is a lot of relavent information from the last few years. I know that there is a few things that haven't changed from these times, but there is quite a lot of older information. Most of the information in this article I learned in classs, so I feel that most of it is still relvent to stay in the article. I don't think any information is missing, and if I could add anything in this article it would be more on ecological interactions like mutalism. This article doesn't address any underrepresented history.

Tone and Balance

I would say that this article kept a neutral tone throughout the whole article, and I wouldn't change anything with the tone.

Sources and References

All the facts are backed up since most things are cited, the links to the citations work, and they are fairly current besides the articles from the 1950s-1990s.

Organization and Writing Quality

The writing throughout this article is great, but I would fix a few sentences in the introduction due to grammar that doesn't work. I don't like how it's sectioned since the first section has such a wide range that should be broke into smaller sections. There are 14 parts under the first sections, and there are sections that could be broken into their own section like food chains and trophic levels.

Images and Media

There are a good amount of images throughout the article, but there could be more for a couple of different subjects like for human ecology. They are all well-captioned, but they aren't laid out in an appealing way.

Talk Page Discussion

This article is constantly being edited and there is so much work that everyone has put into it considering people are continuously editing sources as well as adding new infomation. This article is rated a GA level, and is a part of several projects such as the ecology, biology, extinction, ecoreigions, enviroment, evolutionary biology, history of science, and vital projects. Wikipedia's conversations aren't very different from the conversations we've had in class since they put this as a project with high priority, however, no one has used the talk page in quite a while.

Overall Impression

Articles overall status is good because it has the strength of the information in the article being very important. I wouldn't add anything in particular that could change this article significantly, but I would edit it to improve what's already there. Since I believe this article is well-developed, I would only change grammer, organization of photos/sections, and fix a few sentences that don't make sense.

CalmPeach (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)