User:Cdorr87234/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.


 * Bee learning and communication: Bee learning and communication
 * I chose to evaluate this article because we are focusing on bee communication, and I'd like to have some background knowledge before I get to class and start physically studying bees.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * The lead is concise and easy to understand, and it includes the subtopics and some elaboration about each one. The elaborations could be a little bit more specific and detailed in my opinion, but the information is there. There is also a lack of citing in the lead.


 * 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 was a plethora of information given for color learning, which was very useful and detailed. The article had multiple sub headings describing color memory, learning rates, discrimination, etc. The information was very relevant and helpful, and personally helped me understand the topic of bee communication a lot better. In particular, the neurobiology and cognition sections were the most helpful to me. However, I noticed that a few of the examples given weren't backed up by sources, and they weren't very detailed. Examples of this include under the general learning header, and the communication header.These examples left me wondering where the author got the information from and if it was actually correct.


 * 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
 * The article is very neutral and gives the facts with no explicit bias. If anything, the article is biased towards the position that bees can effectively communicate with one another, but that fulfills the article's purpose. It could be possible to include a viewpoint that bees cannot communicate with one another, but that information could be difficult to find or unreliable.


 * 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
 * Some of the paragraphs are written using only one source. An example of this is the Memory paragraph, in which the author cites a singular source at the end of the lengthy paragraph. In order to make the information more reliable, at least another source should be added. With this in mind, the sources used throughout the article are very reliable and relevant to the topic, and each of the links work perfectly. There is a variety of authors from different time periods, but the majority of the sources range from the mid 1900's to the 2000's. This makes sense because available technology was getting increasingly useful and accessible.


 * 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 organized in a great way; the headings are very descriptive and explain exactly what each paragraph is about. It is also extremely easy to read, and even explains some of the more complicated topics in easier to understand ways. There aren't any significant grammatical or spelling errors.


 * 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
 * The article has a few images that supplement the article really well; these include the bee waggle picture, and the picture that describes the bees color vision spectrum. They are well captioned for the most part, although some of the captions about singular bees could be better written. The pictures are all cited correctly and are laid out in a visually appealing way.


 * 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
 * The article is rated a B, and it is part of Wikiproject Insects and Wikiproject agriculture. The talk page has very differing views, with some claiming that the waggle dance was discovered quite long ago instead of just recently, as stated on the wikipedia page. In addition, one person on the talk page also claims that bees can't understand physical movement at all. There is much debate surrounding some of the points made on the page on the talk section.


 * 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
 * Overall, the article is very helpful and informative, but could include more valuable information about the bee waggle dance. I think that the article is developed, but more general information could be added.


 * 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: