User:Fevans9/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Stereotypy (non-human)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Originally, I looked for any articles that included animals just from my own interest. When I did find an article it mentioned stereotypy but with animals and since this was a new topic I never heard of, I went and found this article. This article matters because it presents information on animal welfare being threatened because of an animal behavior stereotypy believed to be caused by captivity. My preliminary impression of this article was that it was informative.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section

This section of the article was well presented, the first sentence itself told you what information was gonna be presented within the whole article. The information provided in this first section, are later expanded on with cites provided. Overall I can say that it stayed on the topic of Stereotypy with animals and causes. I feel like there were just enough details in this section, if anything more than. If the author wanted to remove and include the details later on in the article, they could of.

Content

The content that is used in this article is current. The topic has been expanded within the all the information that was provided including multiple animals and their exact behaviors.

Tone and Balance

The article is neutrally told. While the topic of stereotypy in animals can bring about opinions on how it can be reduced. The author of the article made sure to keep it unbiased and focus more on the facts.

Sources and References

One thing, this author provides alot of citations, when pressing on some I had issues actually accessing the material. One of the sources that I did check didn't focus on the topic at. This is nothing that cant be removed, other than that I did see certain animals like the issues with mink. This was of many references provided that helped to support what was told in the article. The oldest source goes back to 1965, which is very old. While there are some from 2002 which is twenty-one years ago, the evidence from that source did support the relationship between laboratory rodents and cages stereotypies. Some references go back to 1900s, the diversity among authors seem to be there, while I am not so sure. The author did include citations from things like Newsletters and journals along with articles found online. Something like making sure all link are working, some I have either expired or it was a bad link and needed updating.

Organization and writing quality

The article was well written, it was easy to understand. There weren't any spelling errors. I did like how the article was broken down into different sub-headings, it made the article easier to read. When I wanted to find something after reading, I knew exactly which section to go back and look under. He also had an example sub heading for the different animals he used along with the different stereotypies they had.

Images and Media

I loved the media in this article, the video was a good touch also. Most wikipedias don't include videos but it was actually a good idea to include one since the top is on an animal behavior. The captions are on point with the pictures, they also don't go against the copyright regulations. The video and pictures, it was a total of three media in this article and they were placed correctly.

Talk Page Discussion

There was conversation on the talk page, someone helped edit out a reference because they couldn't find it even in STEM libraries. The author followed up after he found the correct source name, it was in-fact a paper somewhere but the citation was just inputted wrong. This article is a WikiProject.

Overall Impressions

The article was well put together. It was informative and I learned alot from it, it was well structured and included alot of facts. My favorite part was the media that was included. The most help would need to go to the citations, alot was provided to support the content but some may need updating and to make sure the link is still valid and that it relates to the text.