User:149.43.110.150/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Synanceia verrucosa
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate as it is the article I will be adding to for class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead does include an introductory sentence that describes the stonefish briefly and clearly.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does not include a brief description of the major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead does not include information not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The content does seem up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, there is no mention of the stonefish's reproductive systems.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, the article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, no biased claims are made.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, there don't seem to be viewpoints over or underrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the article doesn't attempt to persuade.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All the information does seem backed up by a source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are thorough
 * Are the sources current? Not all of the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links mostly work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the article as it stands is well written.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, there are no grammatical errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is well organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is only one picture.
 * Are images well-captioned? No, there is no caption for the single photo.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, the picture adheres to copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The images are not really visually appealing.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There seem to be a few people complaining that the article is lacking information and images.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is part of the wikiproject fishes. It is not rated very highly.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Yes, there is no mention of reproduction in this article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The status of this article is not very good at the moment.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article speaks heavily on the toxicity of the stonefish's venom.
 * How can the article be improved? More images can be added, and more information can be adde as well/
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is underdeveloped.

Optional activity

 * 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: