User:Cjamiso1/sandbox

Article Evaluation: Rüppell's Vulture

 * Article Link: Rüppell's vulture
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * There is some awkward phrasing that occurs in sentences. For example "known also as..." is incredibly awkward to read, think, or say. There are also run on sentences that can clearly be separated into distinct and totally different thoughts.
 * There are several grammatical errors
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The Description section contains information that isn't cited about how the vultures look and uses some colloquial phrasing. This could lead to an unfair characterization of vultures especially if they are referred to as having a "dirty-white fluff". Using the word dirty doesn't just make a reader think about color.
 * There are tiny little bits of commentary from the author scattered in the article next to facts. For example stating that these vultures are "relatively slow birds" is not necessary to relaying the information.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are only brief mentions of eating habits and social behavior that are thrown in underneath the Ecology heading.
 * The Ecology heading is not as fleshed out or organized as it could be. It doesn't contain very much information that makes the connection to the heading without requiring reframing.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * The links worked. Not all of the sources can be found. Reference number 13 registers as 404: page not found when clicked on when it should lead to. This is also the case with several other references making it hard to tell whether or not the information is reliable from the reference list alone.
 * The sources that are cited and can be accessed do support the article and are relevant.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Entire chunks of the information are not cited or linked to a reference.
 * The entire last paragraph of the Ecology section doesn't have a reference and it should. Same with the end of the Description section.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * The sources that are cited and can be accessed contain information that is roughly 8 years out of date. This likely is not accurate when it comes to statistics and other numbers representing the vultures.
 * Separate sections or sub-sections about food and adaptations should be created. Throwing it all under the heading Ecology doesn't create an organized article.
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is a lot of argument about how to spell Rüpell. The debate is about whether or not the use of the "o umlaut" is acceptable or if the 'English spelling' should be used. I believe the argument is that the name should only have English characters because the page is in English. This is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Call the vulture what it was named. It was verified that there is no listing of the vulture as "Ruepell's".
 * There is also a lot of speculation about the validity of some of the sources. This doesn't paint the article in a very good light and it seems that a reader would be much better off going to a different resource entirely.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is part of WikiProject Birds. This is a project that is trying to create a comprehensive resource for information on different types of birds.
 * The article is rated as Start-Class
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This article gave most of the basics that we learned in class however, there was a subtle(ish?) use of the author's commentary integrated into the facts that could portray vultures within the common stereotype that we discussed. In class we talked about why this isn't necessarily a truthful portrayal of vultures and their importance to the environment. The article entirely skips over the actually ecological impact vultures have by eating carcasses which is one of the important details we are taking into consideration in the work we're doing.