User:BCRacheBio/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: Malacosteus australis
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * Just a comparison to Malacosteus niger, not really an overview of description of M. australis. Needs more information and more than one source. Needs structure and links.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

Yes the Lead has an introductory sentence but is very brief. There are no major sections so they are not described. The Lead is the only written material so no it doesn't present material not included in the article. The Lead is vague and non-descriptive. It has very few links.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

There isn't really content other than a few sentences in the Lead so therefore it isn't sectioned, organized or informative. All the information belongs. The topic addresses deep sea organisms that are historically understudied and unknown.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

All the info is neutral. There isn't bias or any claims that aren't fact based or really any viewpoints other than that Malacosteus australis is a new species. The cited source gives scientific evidence that it is a new species separate from Malacosteus niger, so no other arguments are seen here.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

There is two sources so it is not through, as I found other articles on this topic. All the facts are backed up. The links work, but one of the links leads to a scientific article forum that requires a subscription. I've read the article and have access so I know the facts are accurate but others may find this article hard to verify. The last source is 2007, which may be the most current article. All the info from the sources is from one source, so it would be more diverse.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is well written and easy to read and is free of spelling and grammatical errors. It is not broken down into sections because there isn't enough information.


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

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There are no images.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There are no conversations. For quality it is rated Stub-Class and is rated Low-importance for importance.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The overall status is incomplete, disorganized, and lacking in information. It could use new material, more sources, pictures, and organized into major sections.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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: