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

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section:

The article that I chose talks about the development of EBIPM framework, which is based on ecological factors to manage infestation of invasive weed and to restore landscapes. The article elaborates on the 5 steps of this framework and explains each step in detail. The article speaks about some background information which mentions how previously many treatments have been done to treat rangelands that have been dominated by invasive species but none of them targeted the underlying reason for them. This caused them to reappear from time to time again. The EBIPM plan is also based on ecological succession that was theorized by Frederic Clements. Frederic Clements also explained plant community change overtime. Steward T.A. Pickett further expanded on the theory of Frederic Clements and developed a hierarchical model. This model looked at causes of change in plant community, availability of sites, availability of species, and performance of species. The article also expanded more on availability of sites, availability of species, and performance of species allowing the reader to better understand why these factors are important for developing a framework such as EBIPM.

Content:

The content that was presented in the article was related to the main topic of the article. The content was not up to date. All the references that were mentioned in the article were at least 12 years old. The most latest reference it had was from 2011. I think That the content present in the article was pretty good overall, One thing that I think should be mentioned in that article is the harm that can be caused by the invasive plant species. This will help the reader to understand why the framework that was proposed holds importance.

Tone and Balance:

The article mainly talks about a framework that can improve and help with the way invasive species are dealt with. It talks about the benefits of that framework rather than its disadvantages so we can say that it leads us to believe that such a framework will be helpful if implemented. Due to the claims made and the information given, the article seems to be favoring the EBIPM framework. The article only spoke from a perspective that favours the framework so the opinion that is underrepresented in this article woul dbe one that isn't in favour of the EBIPM plan.

Sources and References:

The sources that were referenced in the article are reliable. The sources that are referenced are about 12 years old at least so they are not up to date but the information present in those references relates to the topic of the article really well. There is a wide range of authors who are referenced as well which I believe makes the article stronger than it would've been if fewer authors were referenced. All the links that were given worked. I think more references can be added along with some more information about invasive species. The article is referring to a framework that is developed for controlling infestation of invasive plant but there is close to no information about why invasive species can be harmful. To make the article more impactful, I think a section regarding the effects of invasive plants should be added which in tern would mean that more references relating to that topic would need to be added.

Organization and writing quality:

The article is well written and has subsections with relevant information. It is clearly written making it easy to read and understand. I did spot some grammatical mistakes. One example of that was in the paragraph that was written explaining step 5, it said that "outcomes and the true effectiveness of management is virtually impossible to predict" which should've said "outcomes and the true effectiveness of management are virtually impossible to predict". Overall, the point of article was conveyed effectively.

Images and Media:

The article had one picture to show the EBIPM restoration efforts in eastern Oregon. There weren't any pictures that were given, but the picture that was given had a caption that represented the picture well. The picture that was used in the article was mentioned to be the work of the author so it adhere to wikipedia copyright regulations. There was only one picture that was given so there wasn't much for the author to organize and present in an appealing way. The placement of the picture that was added however was appropriate.

Talk page Discussion:

There were no discussions in the talk section of the article. The article is part of Wikiproject Environment to add on to Wikipedia's articles/pages that are based on the environment. The article is rated as C-class for it's quality and is rated to have low importance for projects. This article also fits into the category of Wikiproject Plants which is there to improve and add on to information about plants and botany. For the Wikiproject, the article is still rated C-class and is rated of low importance to projects.

Overall Impressions:

I think one of the strengths of this article was that it was organized well. It was written in a way where it was easy for anyone to understand it. They don't need to have a background for the topic that was discussed because all the information needed to make sense of the article, was given. I definitely do think that this article can be developed further and can have more background information about the harmful effects that invasive species can have as well as can mention any benefits it might have. The article can also add more examples of this framework being implemented and what the results were.