User:Gcastillo01/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: Sexual dimorphism measures
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article since sexual dimorphism is varied by hormonal influences, resulting in the presence of any variations within a community by their morphology.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead was a bit confusing whether or not the article would focus on the controversy versus the topic, but it did catch my attention to continue reading. The lead described what the main focus of the article would be, providing quick examples to get a good sense of what "measures" were involved in evaluating sexual dimorphism.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions
 * The content seems to be up to date with its information. The links all work and take me to the information on a new Wiki page.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

Yes, the article is neutral. It gave an unbiased explanation on measures based on sample means and something more than sample means. The article does a good job on providing different views and controversies with the models, which is the same as providing perspectives in a realistic, worldly-lens. There is not implication of whether or not the measures should or shouldn't be used.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

Yes, the article had working links. The sources are reliable sources, I looked over and was able to click through all the links. The most recent article used was published in 2004. Most of the sources are articles that were published in the 80s and 90s, so not the most current. I do believe that the article can benefit from more current sources.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is well-written and easy to follow, especially with its explanation on how to interpret the results of each method. I do think that certain sentences can be more precise and concise, but there are no spelling errors present. The sections were formatted in a well-organized matter.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

There are images given in the article that enhances the understanding of each method. They are well-captioned in that they are clear and concise. They do follow the copyright regulations for images, and they are nicely placed in the article. The article also has a nice presentation with its formulas, although they are not separate images. I believe this is worth mentioning due to the consistency in clarity that the article has with its information and how it presents it to the reader.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

There is something under "Untitled" where is involves a conversation on how to apply the methods to different situations and circumstances. There were also recommendations on how to be more precise and concise with certain sections and its wording. The article is rated C-class, low importance as part of the Wikiprojects in the following: Biology, Statistics, and Animal anatomy.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

The status of this article is good. The article does a good job on being unbiased with its information and elaboration on the different methods available for sexual dimorphism measures. Its sources can be updated with more recent references since the most recent used was an article published in 2004. The wording in some phrases can be less awkward by being more concise, as it was mentioned in the "Talk" page. I believe the article is well-developed but could benefit from more edits.


 * 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: