User:Bethakneedeep/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: (Hibernation)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I have chosen this article to evaluate because it is an aspect of animal behaviour that interests me. It is also a phenomenon that has been relatively well studied and documented, so there should be plenty of information in the article for me to look over and consider.

Lead

 * Guiding questions:

I am choosing to edit this and assign numbers to these questions in an attempt to remain organized.


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


 * 1) The lead is concise and clear, and uses the appropriate scientific terms (e.g. metabolic inactivity, endotherms) which are themselves linked for further comprehension.
 * 2) The lead provides an overview of what the general process of hibernation is, with a couple examples and contrasts made. It does not touch on every major section, but I believe this is because there are too many and would make the lead overlong.
 * 3) Other than specific animal examples of hibernation, no, there is no information in the lead that is not further explained in the article.
 * 4) For a behaviour that is seen in many animals in many forms, I believe the lead is concise and of appropriate length. It gives an overview of the topic, touches on the fact that it can be displayed in different ways in different animals, and even makes it clear that true hibernation is seen only in endotherms, though some ectothermic animals display similar states (I did not know this prior to reading the article!).

Content

 * Guiding questions:


 * 1) Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * 2) Is the content up-to-date?
 * 3) Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?


 * 1) The article's content is relevant to the topic, covering the differences in hibernation states seen in mammals, and again in birds.
 * 2) The content appears to be up-to-date, with many of the articles 28 sources coming from the last 10-15 years.
 * 3) I do not believe there is content missing, though some points could have used a little more elaboration. For example, the article mentions that one bird known to truly hibernate is the common poorwill, but then the article does not say whether the bird is an obligate or faculative hibernator, as it does for the mammal examples.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


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


 * 1) The article is neutral and scientific.
 * 2) There do not appear to be biased claims.
 * 3) There are no true viewpoints, only facts from scientific sources with no room for personal interpretation.
 * 4) The article does not attempt to persuade or convince the reader of any stance or opinion.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 1) Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * 2) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * 3) Are the sources current?
 * 4) Check a few links. Do they work?


 * 1) The article is well sourced, with no facts lacking citations.
 * 2) The sources are very thorough, and there is a wide selection of them. They are very specific to the fact currently being discussed, as opposed to a few sources stretched to cover all topics.
 * 3) The sources are current, with a few coming from the 90's and 80's, but the majority coming from the 2000's and 2010's.
 * 4) A quick browse through the links showed them all to be working.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 1) Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * 2) Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * 3) Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?


 * 1) I believe the article is well written and easy to read and understand.
 * 2) There were no grammar or spelling errors evident.
 * 3) The article is organized and broken down into sections reflecting the different types of hibernation and differences between species.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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


 * 1) The article has a few images that are relevant to the topic.
 * 2) The images are captioned and and linked to further articles.
 * 3) The images do not violate any copyright regulations, as far as I can ascertain.
 * 4) The images are laid to the right of the information presented, with a couple in the lead that give an idea of what an animal looks like in hibernation, and another of bears that is lined up with the bear section of the article. They do not interfere with the flow of the article and add a nice visual touch.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


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


 * 1) There have been extensive conversations about this article, which lead me to think it was a bit of a mess before some serious editing happened. The article contained spelling mistakes, pointless anecdotes, factual errors, and other issues before being revised by many others.
 * 2) The article is rated as level-4 vital article in biology, start-class. It is part of two projects: WikiProjects Animals and WikiProjects Mammals/Bats Task Force.
 * 3) This topic is not one we have discussed in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


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


 * 1) The start-class rating of the article means that more information is going to be needed for this article to improve, as it is only one step above the stub rating.
 * 2) The strengths of the article are it's current organization, and the lead which is well-written.
 * 3) More information and examples about true hibernating birds would be useful. More information about facultative hibernators would also improve the article, as there is only a brief definition of the phenomenon, followed by an example of two species that enter different types of hibernation, with no elaboration on why this difference occurs or why it is important.
 * 4) I would put the article in the under-developed category. My initial assessment of the article changed after a few readings, I realized that a well-written lead and nicely laid out organization are being undermined by a lack of information in some sections.

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:

I am choosing not to do this part, as I now would like to see if this is an article I would be allowed to work on as part of our term assignment, and would like to save my ideas on improvement so that they aren't all done when I come back to it. If it is the case that I am not allowed to choose this article, then I will leave some of the aforementioned ideas for improvement behind :)