User:ABitterGrace/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: (link) Sea cucumber
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I am doing research into a species of sea cucumber for my project.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it briefly describes distributions and anatomical features common to sea cucumbers.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, but it doesn't mention anything of the cultural or commercial elements of sea cucumbers.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The Communication and Sociability section needs work.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. It's treatment of the black market and preservation are neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes. Wide variety of nationalities.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The link to the most heavily cited source [10] didn't work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It could use some style improvement.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Some comma usage could be improved.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. Good organization.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes!
 * Are images well-captioned? There was one lacking identification, poor caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? All of them appear to be public domain.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, especially the nice bar of photos at the top.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Lots of discussion of links and dead links.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? level-4 vital, C-class, and related to several Wiki projects
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? there's a bot involved in the discussion fixing links.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Pretty strong. Good content.
 * What are the article's strengths? Anatomy section, phylogeny, photos
 * How can the article be improved? Communication and sociability section, relation to humans.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? well-developed/

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: