User:Amhwarren/Evaluate an Article

Amhwarren - 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: Cleaner fish
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate:

I have chosen this article to evaluate because it is a start-class article on a topic of fish behaviour that I would like to explore further for my Wikipedia project.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, the lead includes an introductory sentence that clearly describes what cleaning behaviour is among cleaner fish.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

The lead includes a brief description of the diversity of cleaner fish interactions as well as mimicry by non cleaner fish, but the lead also includes details that should have been saved as content for the major sections, for example the description of the physical characteristics commonly seen in cleaner fish.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

Yes, The lead gives examples of cleaner fish interactions that are not further described in the article.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is fairly concise but contains some details that could be reorganized to be included within the sections instead of in the lead, for example, the lead introduces conspicuous coloration in cleaner fish and convergent evolution among the cleaner fish but only elaborates on convergent evolution of other mimicking fish.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes, the content is relevant to the topic.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

Yes, the references are from recent years.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Yes, information about the importance of this fish behaviour is missing. The article should elaborate more on humans exploitation of this behaviour in aquaculture and therefore the implications that understanding this behaviour holds. The article may also benefit from including information about the evolutionary history of cleaning behaviour in fish.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?

Yes, but there are some anthropomorphic descriptions of the cleaner fish behaviour, for example describing a fish to "gladly eat the scales" off another fish, or describing the cleaner fish to "cheat" when eating another fishes mucus instead of it's parasites.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

There are no claims that are heavily biased.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The descriptions of other fishes mimicking as cleaner fish is over represented and could have been it's own article.


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

The article does not attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

There are consistent citations, which seem to all come from reliable sources with the exception of one citation that is a news article.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

No because it is missing literature that reflects cleaning behaviours use in aquaculture.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes the sources are current.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

The first reference link does not work, but other do.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes, but the main sections could be better organize and subdivided and anthropomorphic language should be removed.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

The article does not 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?

No, there should be more sections to divide up the example of cleaner fish, as there are descriptions of the behaviour that should have it's own section in the article.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes but images could be included for examples that are actually referenced within the article.


 * Are images well-captioned?

The images are well captioned.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Yes, they all have attributed sources.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?


 * Yes, the images are 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 is a fair amount of discussion on how to properly organize the different examples of cleaner fish given within the article. Shrimp Cleaner stations are mentioned in the article but there is discussion about how this topic should have it's own separate page as shrimp are not technically fish.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

This article is rated as start-class and low-importance and it is part of WikiProjects for Fishes, Aquarium Fishes, and Ecology


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

We have not yet talked about this topic in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?

The overall status of this page is start-class and low-importance.


 * What are the article's strengths?

The article is strong in the amount of diverse examples of cleaner fish that are provided.


 * How can the article be improved?

The article can be improved by reorganizing the marine examples paragraph to include a separate section on the nutrition of feeder fish, and having the actual marine examples separate. It may also be improved by changing some of the anthropomorphic language, and including updated information on the importance of the exploitation of this cleaner fish behaviour by humans in aquaculture, as well as including information about the evolutionary history of cleaner fish.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

The article is well developed for the information there, but it is lacking further information on cleaner fish therefore I would give it an overall assessment as underdeveloped.