User:AshleyHurst/Evaluate an Article

Ashley Hurst / Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Automeris io)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because it is relevant to my course (Invertebrate Zoology) and is lacking in citations as well as more information. Having knowledge of these moths is important for ecosystems. My preliminary impression was that it was lacking information.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section:


 * Clear and concise introductory sentence
 * The lead lacks a brief overview of the rest of the sections
 * Overall, concise throughout the introduction

Content:


 * Content is relevant to the topic


 * Could be lacking information on habitat, food resources, and physiology

Tone and Balance:


 * Overall neutral tone without any persuasion

Sources and References:


 * Not all facts are backed up (lacked inline citations throughout)
 * Only used three sources, all ranging from different timelines (1775, 2017 and 2001)
 * More updated peer review articles are available (some on color variants, others on water loss, and diseases affecting the caterpillar stage)
 * All links work

Organization and writing quality:


 * Article is well-written (clear and concise)
 * No grammatical errors
 * Broken down into sections that flow well

Images and Media


 * Images all enhance the article
 * Images are well captioned and include citations
 * Image layout could be changed up a bit, but overall still enhances the article

Talk Page Discussion:


 * Discussions regarding Assessment and modifying links are going on behind the scenes
 * The article is rated as a start-class on the quality scale and is mid-importance. This article is in the WikiProject Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths)
 * Discussions are all polite and refer to potential removals of sections politely and state that they have the potential to be outdated and can be up for discussion for removal.

Overall Impressions:


 * The overall status is a start-class article, which is where it belongs until more information is added or updated
 * The strengths are the writing styles and how concise the writing is
 * Improvement to inline citations and more information on typical habitat within their distribution, food resources, and physiology from peer-reviewed literature could improve the overall article.
 * Overall development is great, it just needs more information and references added to it.