User:Avdelfierro/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: Attacus atlas
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I chose to evaluate Attacus atlas because I found it to be an interesting invertebrate.

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? It contains a contents section that shows the major sections, but there is no brief description of each major section in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very short as much of the content is spread throughout the different sections of the page.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, there were edits made last year.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All the content is relevant to the topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, the article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, I do not see any bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Attacus atlas and its relationship with humans only is shown. The relationship this moth has with its environment could be shown as well.
 * 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? Yes, the sources seem to be reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current? There is a good range of sources that range from relative older to new.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links I checked worked.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the article is easy to read and clearly explains each header.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I found, but there were some sentences that did not seem to flow well.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * 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? There is discussion about a source of information (The species distribution) that has been added and removed a few times. It keeps being removed due to lack of verification.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated as start class with a low priority. It is part of a WikiProject called Lepidoptera which is a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article is rated as start class.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article is pretty concise, clearly saying this and that for facts.
 * How can the article be improved? The article has a good foundation and basic information. There is room to add more detailed information (if available) to each section. Adding other perspectives besides their relationship with humans would be great.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article seems like a good start and more cleaning up and adding of information seems possible.

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: