User:Gil6362/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: Velociraptor
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. : I wasn't sure what other topic would seem as cool and interesting to read up on except a velociraptor, especially since I just learned today in a class that they had feathers that developed before being used for flight.

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? :It gave a brief overall description of the velociraptor, but didn't specifically state what was going to be discussed in major sections. It does however state so in the contents.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? :No it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? :The lead is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? :Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? :Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? :No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? :It only addresses the history, taxonomy, and some behaviors and functions of the velociraptor.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? :Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? :No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? :No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? :No because there is no position to favor.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? :Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? :Yes.
 * Are the sources current? :Yes there are some from the 1990s, one dating back to 1974, and the most recent being 2019.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? :Yes the sources have a diverse spectrum of authors. I'm not sure what this last question is saying.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? :Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? :Yes, not much jargon that would make it difficult for the reader to understand.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? :None that I had seen.
 * 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, all have a caption attached below to each image. Except the phylogenetic tree doesn't have a caption written underneath, but rather incorporated into a statement above it.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? :All images have a wikilink that sends me to the source, except the phylogeny tree.
 * 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? :Just how to say some statements more concisely and if the Jurassic Park dinosaur was based off of the velociraptor or the Deinonychus.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? :Yes its part of a dinosaur collaboration.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? :We haven't spoken on this topic.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? :It is a featured article in Wikipedia.
 * What are the article's strengths? :Neutrality, accuracy, completeness, and style.
 * How can the article be improved? :I don't have any suggestions to improve it.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? :It is 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 — ~


 * Link to feedback: