User:Desensi ashley/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: Golden jackal
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. It fits the criteria of the article evaluation exercise and it is a mammal.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes it does.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? None that I saw.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise for the length of the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, It seems like all of their information is relevant to the Golden Jackal. Is there anything that distracted you? The only portion that was distracting was first paragraph in the section about the distribution and habitat of the Jackal. It would have been better if the countries of inhabitation were shown in tabular form or maybe on a may.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Information on the subspecies could be updated with genetic analyses. I don't see anything else that could be added.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Maybe an updated search on the subspecies and information from any recent molecular studies that may have been done on the Jackals. Otherwise, they have covered everything from morphology to folklore. Well done!

Content evaluation 10/10
Excellent content and article!

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, it is neutral and has many different sources that create an unbiased article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, see above comment.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, see above comment.

Tone and balance evaluation 10/10
Again, excellent article.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the sources seem to support the claims made in the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, there are reliable references. The information comes from various journals and books.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I saw.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? As far as I can see.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Talk is going on about the updated distributions, genetics, and etymology of the Golden Jackal.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as a featured article, which is defined as one of the best articles wiki has to offer. It is part of three different projects: Wikiproject dogs, Wikiproject mammals, Wikiproject guild of copy editors.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? As we haven't discussed much about wiki articles, I cannot answer this question.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Featured article.
 * What are the article's strengths? Very well done. All parts of the article are well cited. Describes all aspects of the Golden Jackal.
 * How can the article be improved? A few minor changes to subspecies section.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Well-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 — ~ Here is the comment I posted on the talk page for the Golden Jackal. >> Has anyone looked for updated molecular studies that could provide more accurate information on the subspecies of the Golden Jackals? -- Desensi ashley (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Link to feedback: Talk:Golden jackal