User:Ctardiff/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.


 * Pack Rat
 * I chose to evaluate this article because of it's relevance to my class, Paleoecology. Pack rats, genus Neotoma, have unique behavioral characteristics which are important to paleoecology. They collect and store: seeds, macro-fossils, and other plant parts, in their dens which are relatively good areas of preservation. This allows researchers to have a reliable source of past plant matter and species' ranges.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The Lead is concise, but could have more information. It describes the species which are contained within "packrat" but doesn't highlight the rest of the article's major sections. Understandably, the article doesn't go into detail about every species within the packrat genus because that would be a very long article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The article uses bushy-tailed wood rats as a representative species for an entire genus, where the article should likely stick with only the genus, or add more variety to the representative. The content is good, it covers all the topics I would expect. It doesn't necessarily add anything, though.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral. It has a scientific term, stating facts plane and simple. No claims that seem heavily biased, or that try to persuade the reader. The article just states biological information.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The articles are all scientific publications, ranging in date from the 1980's to 2015. Because the sources aren't webpages, but published in journals, there aren't web links to the articles which does make checking the source information more work. The sources do give you the articles in a Web of Science search. There could be more, though, especially in the sections about their Habitat, because none are listed.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article is concise, yet thorough. No grammatical errors, and it is organized. I like the way the article is categorized, it makes logical sense to start more broad about the topic, and get more specific throughout the article.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
The images are excellent, they give a good idea of what the genus looks like, where it lives, and other visuals about topics about the article mentions. The captions are concise and clear.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The talk page seemed to be composed mostly of academic evaluations for classes relevant to Pack-Rats. Many people took issue with the lack of definition of pack rats use as a climate proxy, which I agree with. It is part of a WikiProject to improve coverage of rodent-related topics and mammal-related topics. In class, pack rats are a topic of climate and community proxies, whereas this article is half about proxies, and half about it's specific biology.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
The article seems relatively underdeveloped. There could be more information added in about every topic area, and more sources added in already existing parts of the article. However, this isn't a well known topic and the fact that attention is being payed to the genus of rodent is great. The information is good, and matches what we've learned in class about it's use for climate proxies. If more could be added about the contributions of pack rats as an important tool in researching paleo-climates would really add to the article. And to keep it neutral, add the limitations, assumptions, and bias' associated with using pack rats.

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: