User:Bt021/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Atlantic humpback dolphin

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Dolphins are one of my favorite mammals. I've actually had the opportunity to swim with dolphins in Key Largos, FL a few years ago. I was so glad to finally check it off my bucket list! Also, I used to go on vacation in OBX, NC and go tubing with the boat. One time my cousin and I were out in the tube and the dolphins were swimming right next to us. We couldn't touch them though because they are wild and we didn't know what wild dolphins would do to us. The Atlantic humpback dolphin matters because it is in the critically endangered category according to IUCN. It is a threatened species in which it needs to be saved. I'm interested in this article because saving dolphins, my favorite mammal, would be cool. People like me would be able to see them and be amazed by their beauty and tricks.

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

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

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? Yes

Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes

Is the content up-to-date? Yes

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article neutral? Yes

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

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? No

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No (Encyclopedia link page not found).

Are the sources current? Yes

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No, only 5 references

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Yes

Check a few links. Do they work? Most of them, one does not work

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

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

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No

Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes

Are images well-captioned? Yes

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Just my welcome talk from Ian

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? No rating found on Talk page

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Similar to how we discussed it in class, however there is no Conservation section which I will have to add

Overall impressions

What is the article's overall status? Pretty lousy, very short, not a lot of info

What are the article's strengths? has good contents so far, could add some, has good leading section and description

How can the article be improved? add some sections like conservation, go more in depth with the info already stated.

How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Under developed, not too much info on it

'''I will have to add a bunch of info which is not currently present in the article. I can expand the sections and also add a conservation section. This will make the page longer, so I can add some images to help display the info easier. The references page is lacking and I will most certainly add my facts to the citations in the reference page.'''

~Brylee