User:Aed761/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title
 * Northern lynx
 * Article Evaluation
 * Stub class, low importance article.

Lead[edit][edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes but there could be a few animal characteristics added to the introductory sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No the lead only introduces the topic but barely.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead talks about how the species is a subspecies and this is not mentioned in the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, probably a bit too concise.

Lead evaluation[edit][edit]
Overall the lead could use a bit more detail including possibly introducing the Northern Lynx's morphology, and a bit more about the species abundance.

Content[edit][edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The article's content is relevant to the topic but should be expanded more to include all about the species.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The content is relatively up to date, most references are from 2011 so I should try and find some newer studies about the species to reference.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes there is content that is missing, all that is currently in the article seems relevant.

Content evaluation[edit][edit]
Not enough content, but the content that is available currently does not need much modification in my opinion.

Tone and Balance[edit][edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? The article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes I believe that the predators of the northern lynx are over represented (relative to the rest of the article, currently)
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation[edit][edit]
There should be more information about the species range, and prey in order to give the article better balance.

Sources and References[edit][edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They are a bit outdated, they could use newer books & scientific studies.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation[edit][edit]
Well done but not thorough enough.

Organization[edit][edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I can pick out by eye.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Organization evaluation[edit][edit]
Overall the article is well formatted and organized.

Images and Media[edit][edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes there is one image of a northern lynx however the article could use more photos once there are more sections added to the article.
 * Are images well-captioned? No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No.

Checking the talk page[edit][edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? 'No talk on the talk page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is a part of the WikiProject Cats, and the article is rated as stub-class, low importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We have not discussed this species in class.

Talk page evaluation[edit][edit]
Overall, the page needs another contributor(there's only 1) in order for there to be conversation on the talk page.

Overall impressions[edit][edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article's overall status is very bad because it is currently a stub article with only one contributor.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article presents the prey and predators of the cat as well as its range. The article properly cited resources.
 * How can the article be improved? The article can be improved by receiving more contributions as there are only 5 so far.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Poorly developed

Overall evaluation[edit][edit]
Overall this article is poorly developed, needs newer resources cited that are available. I have found two articles about the Northern Lynx and I plan on adding a few citations from these sources into the article.




 * Sources

https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/50632

https://bioone.org/journals/Wildlife-Biology/volume-5/issue-1/wlb.1999.025/Winter-lynx-Lynx-lynx-predation-on-semi-domestic-reindeer-Rangifer/10.2981/wlb.1999.025.full

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Supernormal stimulus


 * Article Evaluation

Lead[edit][edit]


 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes the introductory sentence concisely describes the article's topic and focus on supernormal stimulus.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Only some sections are introduced, such as examples of supernormal stimulus and how some art is based off of the law of supernormal stimulus.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes the lead includes a talk of how Venus of Willendorf may have originated as a result of supernormal stimulus, as speculated by British academic Nigel Spivey.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and not overly detailed, however it should remove the section about Venus of Willendorf and move that to the body because it is in the lead but is not reintroduced in the body.

Content[edit][edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes there many resources and a few from 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I believe that more examples could be provided such as the herring gull red spot on beak experiment.

Content evaluation[edit][edit]
Overall could use development and newer resources (including some of our course notes)

Tone and Balance[edit][edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The Psychology section could have more to it.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation[edit][edit]
Overall pretty good but could use a slightly larger psychology section

Sources and References[edit][edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation[edit][edit]
The contributors did a good job of citing materials used in the paper.

Organization[edit][edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is clear concise and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I can pick out.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is broken down into section that reflect the major points of the topic, however I think that there is more to be said about the relationship between psychology and Supernormal stimulus.

Organization evaluation[edit][edit]
Well organized, broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic. All sections need more new content.

Images and Media[edit][edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not really, could use more images for the examples.

Images and media evaluation[edit][edit]
Could use more images along the right side next to where examples are introduced.

Checking the talk page[edit][edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are discussions about what is relevant to the topic on the talk page and also some myth busting.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated as start-class and of medium importance. It is a part of two wikiprojects including WikiProject Psychology and WikiProject Cognitive Science.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Yes because in class we used a different example to describe the topic than those written in the article.

Talk page evaluation[edit][edit]
Overall, the talk page is good, but doesn't have many contributions.

Overall impressions[edit][edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Mediocre
 * What are the article's strengths? The article describes the phenomena properly and has valid scientific resources.
 * How can the article be improved? Add to the psychology section.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Underdeveloped.

Overall evaluation[edit][edit]
Overall I believe that the article is well evaluated as a start-class article currently and needs to incorporate more current sources.


 * Sources
 * https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-21845-001
 * https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs12045-018-0688-x.pdf

Option 3

 * Article title
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ablepharus


 * Article Evaluation
 * Lead[edit][edit]
 * 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? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and introduces the body very well.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and introduces the body very well.

Lead evaluation[edit][edit]
Overall the lead introduces the subject well but in bare detail.

Content[edit][edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Not quite, 2017 is the most recent source cited in the reference section.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Content evaluation[edit][edit]
The content that is present is relevant to the topic

Tone and Balance[edit][edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation[edit][edit]
Very good. Limited resources available about the source makes for a challenge writing lots of detail.

Sources and References[edit][edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, but they do not reflect all the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current? They are new, but they aren't great.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization[edit][edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I can pick out immediately
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation[edit][edit]
Good organization and grammar

Images and Media[edit][edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, one.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No.

Images and media evaluation[edit][edit]
Overall there should be more images but the one provided has a good caption.

Checking the talk page[edit][edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Just notification of sources needing review and formatting updates.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is a part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Not a topic discussed in class

Talk page evaluation[edit][edit]
Overall, not a lot of contributions(3) so very little to talk about.

Overall impressions[edit][edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Stub-Class Low Importance.
 * What are the article's strengths? Reliable sources and good lead.
 * How can the article be improved? Adding bulk to the characteristics section and getting the species section up to date.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Poorly developed.

Overall evaluation[edit][edit]
Overall this article needs lots of bulk added to the body, but has a decent lead and good resources.


 * Sources
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790304003239
 * Sources
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790304003239

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 5
Feedback (MF): Interesting articles, Andrew. If you can find more articles on Northern Lynx (Lynx lynx lynx) behaviour then go for it. My only concern is not to confuse that species with other lynx species. For example you added a link for the ecology of lynx in Northern Canada and Alaska. That book chapter would be talking about Lynx canadensis (different lynx species). Note also that Northern Lynx is a subspecies of Eurasian Lynx (Lynx lynx). Both lynx species I mentioned have quite solid wiki articles. So, I would advise you to avoid the Northern Lynx because of its similarity with Eurasian Lynx and so there might not be extensive research on the subspecies itself that would give you enough to write about it. However, if you do find a good deal of research on the lynx subspecies then go ahead with it provided that the content you provide is related to the animal's behaviour.
 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Another student has also picked supernormal stimulus. So I would talk to Dr. Wilson about this topic to resolve this issue if you wish to pursue this article.

The Ablepharus article seems like a promising article to improve on. Make sure there are enough sources (i.e. published articles) about the topic to help you write about the beahviour of this genus of skink. For example, how are these skinks (has its own wiki article) different from other genera?