User:Almersandro/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:
 * Stephanorhinus
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * It's a genus of Pleistocene rhinoceros that inhabited Eurasia during the Pleistocene

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? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
The lead doesn't make a good job in describing the topic - it just provide basic information without being well organized

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? yes, but not very well explained
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Red links

Content evaluation
The content is lacking details on the various species of Stephanorhinus, and most of the links to the species pages are not working ("red links"). It lacks more details/sections about interactions with humans, causes of extinctions, ecology,

Tone and Balance

 * 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
The article is neutral and its tone is well balanced

Sources and References

 * 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? No
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are reliable but there's a lot of scientific iterature that hasn't been explored on the topic.

Organization

 * 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? no
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? no

Organization evaluation
The article is concise and well written, but the content is too scarce to break it down into sections reflecting the major points

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
The images are well captioned and improve the article by providing visual information about the genus treated. They adhere to Wikipedia copyright regulations.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
No relevant conversations are going on behind the scenes.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
The article could be improved by adding content related to the ecology, morphology and extinction of the Stephanorhinus species and dividing it into sections. The article is definetily 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: