User:Aperroch/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Monarch butterfly

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I selected this article to evaluate because the monarch butterfly is a fairly common species in California and I remember learning a little bit about this species during elementary school and middle school. Additionally, in previous years monarch caterpillars have hatched on the milkweed in my backyard, so I am interested in reading more about this species on its Wikipedia page. The monarch butterfly Wikipedia page also has a lot more information than some of the other insect species I am interested in, so I thought it could be a good reference point for what a well-developed insect species page could look like. I hope to draw upon some of the strengths of this Wikipedia page as I expand upon another species' page later in this course.

Evaluate the article
Lead section

The first sentence of the article clearly and concisely describes the topic of the article, the monarch butterfly, and briefly explains what it is. This section provides a brief description of some major sections, namely taxonomy, migration, and distribution, but does not discuss life cycle, threats, conservation, or interactions with humans and predators. The current structure of the lead section is overall very effective as it presents an adequate overview without becoming overly detailed. One element of the lead section that seemed out of place was the description of the viceroy butterfly, a Müllerian mimic of the monarch butterfly. While this information was present in the article, it was such a small component of the article that perhaps that sentence in the introduction could instead describe a more substantial component of the article. For example, the lead section could benefit from a sentence describing threats and conservation.

Content

The content presented in the article is all relevant to the life, history, and interactions of the monarch butterfly. It covered all topics directly relevant to the monarch butterfly, and additional ones that are not as immediately obvious, such as parasites, captive rearing, and mimicry. While the content seems relatively up to date, the section on conservation could benefit from the inclusion of recent updates, as it mostly described efforts from around 2015-2016.

Tone and Balance

The tone of the article is neutral and well-balanced. There were no obvious biases presented, and any recommendations presented were clearly attributed to their source. This article does a good job of informing its readers, and there were no instances in which the language felt persuasive or one-sided.

Sources and References

This article was extremely well sourced. Every statement was supported with at least one reference, and in total, the article contained nearly 250 sources. These sources span a wide range of publication dates, with some being published as recently as 2024 and others as early as 1758. Many sources originate from scientific journals or reputable universities and organizations. The authors are diverse, with multiple ethnicities, genders, and states represented. A large majority of the sources are American in origin, but is lacking in its inclusion of internationally published texts.

Organization and writing quality

The organization of this article is logical. The sections answer readers' questions as they come up. For example, the article originates with etymology and taxonomy, before delving into life cycle and later behaviors associated with the adult butterflies, such as mating, food sources, and migration. The article concludes with topics that are most relevant to potential readers, including threats and conservation status and efforts. This organization allows readers to develop an understanding of the importance of this species before learning about what is being done to protect it. There are no obvious grammatical errors.

Images and media

Images, videos, and graphs are dispersed throughout the article and provide readers with a more complete understanding of this species. All images contain sufficient captions, but some of the captions are only one or two words, so those may benefit from additional detail. The images are visually appealing, properly sourced, and adhere to copyright regulations.

Talk page discussion

The article on the Monarch butterfly is rated as a level-5 vital article that is rated B-class. It is part of two WikiProjects, Insects and Lepidoptera. The talk page contains a mix of minor edits (i.e. typos, etc.), suggestions for additions or larger revisions (i.e. adding a better picture, confusion about a certain section), and interesting facts (i.e. a finding or fact that is not currently in the article but may be interesting to include). There are relatively few conversations (<10).

Overall impressions

Overall, the Wikipedia page on the Monarch butterfly provided a solid overview of many elements of this species' life and behavior. References were well integrated throughout the article and adequately supported statements being made. Perhaps the greatest strength of the article was its scope, as it covered a wide range of topics and nearly each section was supported with images or videos. There are some sections that might be improved by including additional information or updates with recent (2018-present) findings and developments, however, these shortcomings do not affect my positive impression of the article.