User:Dinahcann/Evaluate an Article

Natterjack toad
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead
I decided to evaluate this article because there is an imbalance of information on topics that are more important than others. There is also relevant information that is missing from this article. Information about the natterjack common ancestors, taxonomy, development, and growth could have been added to the article. The lead is not very detailed and only gives barely enough knowledge for further research.
 * 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?

Content
The content of the article is up to date and there is no missing content in the article however, some of the content in this article is irrelevant or does not provide enough information to require its own subtitle.
 * 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
The tone of the article is neutral and not opinionated.
 * 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?

Sources and References
Some of the paragraphs in the article are not cited. The reproductive paragraph contains a lot of information about the mating behavior of the natterjack toad but none of the information is cited. The article used a Wikipedia page as one of its sources. One of the references used in this article is not relevant to the topic discussed in the article. Some of the links used in this article does not work.
 * 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
The article is a concise and easy read but the main topics in the article do not flow in a well-organized manner.
 * 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?

Images and Media
The images in the article provided no additional context to the main point of the article. The author focused on the matting cycle of the natterjack toad but did not provide any images on this topic.
 * 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?

Checking the talk page
The conversation happening on the talk page of the article is mostly about requiring clarification on a statement or providing corrections made in the article. The natterjack toad of part of the Wikipedia Amphibians and reptile projects. The goal of this project is to make accessible resources on Amphibian and Reptiles.
 * 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?

Overall impressions
This is a very underdeveloped article. The is article has been rated start-class by Wikipedia due to its low quality.
 * 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?

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: