User:Czhang13/sandbox

Article Evaluation
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ Evaluation: "White Backed Vultures" Wikipedia page

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? 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? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? 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? 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?
 * Around one-third of the article's length was actually dedicated to footnotes, references, and external links so although those are necessary they did distract from the actual information
 * It was also helpful when they linked external sources to explain words that may be scientific jargon such as Old World Vultures and Accipitridae.
 * In the section Diets that was two paragraphs long there wasn't any citations. There were some specific facts such as how they are different from other vultures and specific species listed that they might eat, but there was no indication where they got the information.
 * The only two aspects of the species that were represented at all were threats to them and their diets. They didn't mention any other important aspects such as life cycle, reproduction, and habitat.
 * The links work but most of them just take you to another Wikipedia page while it would be better and more professional if they linked to other websites, such as when they linked to the IUCN's Red List Wikipedia page rather than the website for the IUCN's Red List
 * Most of the citations were relevant and supported the claims in the article.
 * The section about the Diet has no citations or references and most of the links do link to other Wikipedia pages which is therefore where most of the information comes from.
 * Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral sources but people can chose what they want to talk about and what they focus on so there might be more information about a certain topic and not enough about another.
 * Like mentioned in a previous question, there are other aspects of white-backed vultures that could've been included such as habitat, and life cycle and the page focused heavily on endangerment which while important, can't really be understood if a person doesn't understood the rest of the biology of the vulture.
 * There are no conversations going on on the Talk page of the article.
 * The page is rated as Start-Class and Low-Importance which was a little surprising because they are also listed as Critically Endangered.
 * It is also part of the WikiProject Bird
 * Needs improvement on the biology of the bird so people can understand how to help them better such as understanding how their life cycle and overall biology might make them more vulnerable