User:Austin.sears/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: Pyrrharctia isabella
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. It's an invertebrate species I am familiar with, or at least have seen many times.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The introductory sentence doesn't really say what the species is, just what it's called. It includes common names that include "moth" and "worm" without specifically saying the species is in fact a moth. It could have said something like "Pyrrharctia isabella, the isabella tiger moth, ... or woolly worm is a species of moth that occurs in..."


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?  Not really, as it describes the species' common names, distribution, and first describer, while the rest of the article describes its appearance, diet, related species, and cultural significance. 


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?  Yes, the species' distribution and first describer. 


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?  It is certainly not overly detailed. 

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?  Yes, all of the content makes sense to have for a species' page. 


 * Is the content up-to-date?  Yes. The article has been updated several times in the last year and includes recent references. 


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?  The article doesn't have nearly as much information as pages for more well-known Lepidopterans, like the monarch butterfly article, but it could be argued that it has enough content for how "relevant" the species is. 

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?  Yes. The article mentions beliefs and says that there isn't any scientific evidence for, as opposed to criticizing the beliefs. 


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?  No. 


 * Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?  No. 

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The sources appear reliably, although there are multiple cases of missing citations and a part where an editor claims that a group of people held a certain opinion without telling who the people were.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?  Scientific and relevant sources are used. 
 * Are the sources current?  Yes, some from a recently as 2019. 
 * Check a few links. Do they work?  I successfully opened 1, 2, and 12. 

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I would say so.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?  Nothing that I found. 
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?  The sections seem both relevant and different enough from each other. 

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?  Yes. Even a video clip. 
 * Are images well-captioned?  I think so. 
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?  I think so, as they give credit where it is due. 
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?  Yes. 

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?  Questions about the species and about the validity of the information in the article. 
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?  The article is given the rating of B-class and is part of Wikiproject Lepidoptera. 
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?  There are some casual conversations on the talk page, such as someone's personal experience caring for the species. 

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?  B-class and Mid-importance. 
 * What are the article's strengths?  The information seems relevant. 
 * How can the article be improved?  The article could definitely use more information. 
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I wouldn't say it's poorly developed, just a little 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: