User:ColbyRee/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: box jellyfish
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I have chosen to evaluate this article because it talks about a member of the cnidarian's, which is what we are studying next.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Somewhat, but it jumps straight into information and doesn't offer an introduction
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the description is very short and the major sections are not described.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead doesn't include different information that isn't present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The article is far too concise and doesn't offer enough information or description about the topic.

Lead evaluation
This article contains a relatively well constructed lead. However, it does not contain a brief description of the article's major sections. Though, all of the information in the lead is present in the article. Also, the lead is very concise and lacks enough information. As a whole, the lead does not offer enough.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, it is relevant to the topic, but it could be further expanded upon.
 * Is the content up-to-date? No, because information about the taxonomy is about two years old
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? yes, it is missing a lot of information about the class

Content evaluation
The content of the article is mostly accurate to the topic and rarely deviates. Though, information regarding the phylogeny could be outdated. Additionally, more information could be provided for reproduction and feeding patterns.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, the article contains a relatively neutral view throughout
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? in some cases the author is biased towards a position
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, because there are not really any viewpoints presented
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the article is not written in a persuasive way.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article takes a relatively neutral stance. However, some claims are slightly biased. But, all around the article does a good job of keeping a well represented viewpoint.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, some facts need citations
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? In some instances the sources are good, but in others, the sources were not very reliable.
 * Are the sources current? Some sources were relatively new, but most were about ten years old.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all the links worked fine for me

Sources and references evaluation
Some of the sources in this article need to be changed to more current and accurate sources. Also, more sources are needed for certain sections. This article needs improvement with regard to the sources used.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it clear and easy to read, but lacks flow.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, but there are a few misconceptions
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, but some sections should be rearranged.

Organization evaluation
The article is easy to read, but it needs better organization to help the article flow in a more natural way.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, several images are provided that enhance the article.
 * Are images well-captioned? No, captions could be improved
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, but some are claimed to be self published, so it is unknown
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, most of the images are laid out well.

Images and media evaluation
The images and media provided in this article are well implemented, but improved captions are needed.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Several conversations are going on regarding confusion about some information.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated as a C-class article and is part of the WikiProjects animals and WikiProjects Marine life
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Wikipedia doesn't go into detail about this topic. Also, several sections lack important information that should be shared.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page is relatively active and the topic is very important to wikipedia, but the article is only rated as a C-Class. Therefore, more improvement need to be made.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It needs improvements in several sections and sources need to be updated.
 * What are the article's strengths? Very easy to read and has interesting bits of information spread throughout.
 * How can the article be improved? It can be improved be expanding on the sections discussed and by adding new sections in. Also, updated sources would improve the quality.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think the article is underdeveloped for right now.

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: