User:Cedwards96/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: Aquatic-terrestrial subsidies
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have a background in aquatic and semiaquatic ecology, including birds (shorebirds), fish, and macroinvertebrates.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes: Energy and nutrients derived from aquatic ecosystems and transferred to terrestrial ecosystems are termed aquatic-terrestrial subsidies or, more simply, aquatic subsidies.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the different types of subsidies
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Mostly
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes - missing ecotox section, some sections are broken down in a weird way: example, there is a section for terrestrial subsidies, aquatic subsidies, the importance of aquatic subsidies, but not for the importance of terrestrial subsidies
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No - not relevant

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?
 * Bigger focus on aquatic rather than terrestrial subsidies, which can be improved
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, each fact has a citation
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, but many more could be added
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, maybe not relevant
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is quite concise (maybe too much so). Very easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I found
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Somewhat - the breakdown is a little weird and there are content gaps. Existing sections should be condensed and new sections added

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * None - just a student reporting that they edited the page
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Rated a stub, part of many environmental/ecology wikiprojects
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The talk page is nearly empty

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Stub
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Nutrient flow is well discussed
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Addition of ecotox, reformatting some sections
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Underdeveloped, but the existing content is good and well-sourced

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: