User:Cemacquarrie/Evaluate an Article

Evaluating Whale fall article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Whale fall: Whale fall
 * I am interested in whale falls and it is directly related to my topic for my Wikipedia project, which is on sperm whales.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead does give a specific definition of what a whale fall is. I don't think the Lead explicitly states the article's major sections. It appears that everything mentioned in the Lead is further discussed later in the article. The Lead is detailed, but not overly detailed.


 * 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

The article's content is relevant to the topic; any content that isn't explicitly about whale falls is directly related to whale falls. For example, there is a section on methanogenesis which is a process that is a direct result of a whale fall. It was last edited on July 25, 2020, so the page is up to date. All of the content that is on the page is relevant and it doesn't appear that there is any information missing. I don't believe this article deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, nor is it a topic related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.


 * 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 neutral; it does not try to sway one's opinion. There aren't any claims that appear heavily biased. One section that I would have liked to see a little more information on was the "anthropogenic effects" section. The article does not attempt to persuade or dissuade the reader from any particular position.


 * 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

Every fact in the article is cited. The sources are thorough; they are mostly recent sources and there are 28. Most of the sources were written by men, which isn't surprising but is disappointing. The links that I checked work!


 * 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

I would say that the article is concisely written, though I would like a little more detail in certain areas (e.g., I would have liked to see more topics linked to other Wikipedia pages). I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors. I think some of the sections could be reorganized to be in an order that makes more sense.


 * 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 does include images, but I think it could use more; it would also be nice if video footage of a whale fall could be included. A few of the photos are well-captioned, but one has no caption. It appears that two of the photos aren't properly cited. The images 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 most recent question on the page was asked on Most of the conversations center around making small edits to the article. Rated C-Class; part of the WikiProjects Cetaceans, Mammals, and Oceans. The questions on the talk page aren't really conceptual ones, but rather questions about formatting and citing sources.


 * 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

The article was last edited on July 25, 2020, and the latest activity on the talk page is from January 27, 2020. The overall strengths of the article are that it is well-written and it covers a good breadth of information concerning whale falls. The article could be improved with an overall addition of details and more visual aids (i.e. pictures and videos). I think the article is fairly well-developed; there is a decent history of activity on the talk page.


 * 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: