User:Cbmatr251/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: Conservation biology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. This article was chosen because it is the title of the course in which we are updating an article.

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? Yes, in the 'Contents' box
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
Overall, the Lead is concise and easy to understand. However, it could maybe include a synthesis of specifics categories the page will cover.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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

Content evaluation
Ample, accurate content. Not lacking in content whatsoever.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


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

Tone and balance evaluation
Pretty straightforward page

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not all, but most
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, however the use of more scholarly articles and papers would be nice.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Most claims are backed by sources. Overall, I would like to see more scholarly works used.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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

Organization evaluation
Organization was well done

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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

Images and media evaluation
Images and media are well done.

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 has been no conversations since the beginning of 2018.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated B-class. It is part of 6 WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The talk page is a little confusing, so I am unsure what I was expecting.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page is confusing and I was unable to really follow it or understand its importance.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Well put together, pretty much complete article.
 * What are the article's strengths? Ample information
 * How can the article be improved? Add more scholarly sources
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I believe this article is mostly complete and well-developed.

Overall evaluation
Very well put together article.

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: