User:Gillian Setiawan/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: Diel Vertical Migration (link) Diel vertical migration
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because it is an occurrence that my research topic, Bluntnose Sixgill Sharks, undergo daily. It is of a lot of interest to me.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead identifies what diel vertical migration is through providing a quick definition while also explaining where the word "diel" comes from. Knowing that it is a marine biology occurrence, the lead was also able to specify which marine organisms undergo it. In addition, the lead also clarifies why animals choose to undergo DVM. It is not too dense with information and it includes a quick overview of all the information present in the article. Overall, as it was pretty easy to understand, it seems to be a good lead of good length.


 * 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 is definitely related to the Wikipedia page's topic. Though I do believe that it is up to date, there are some topics that should be included that are not included currently. For example, a section on what animals undergo DVM, a picture to better outline how the process works, maybe even what research had been done on the topic, and or topics related to it. Lastly, with noting the fact that there are a lot of references on the page, I would have hoped for more information on the areas of the topic that are missing.

Overall, however, I thought that the content was pretty good. The tone was neutral and the content was balanced, giving more weight to some important viewpoints and less weight to fringe ideas.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

I believe that the article was neutral in a sense that it was not biased toward any particular positions, it represents all the different viewpoints that reliable sources have expressed about the topic. The viewpoints were all based on facts so I think that it was not trying to persuade or dissuade readers in one position or away from another.


 * 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

There were a lot of sources but I do feel like the page could have added on more topics from each source. With regards to its reliability, I believe that the sources were reliable as they mostly came from journals and scientific research coming from a variety of different authors, most of the references are also real references that actually work. However, the issue I had with this was that none of the references came from 2018 and beyond and that there was only 1 reference that arose from 2017. It might be useful to try to find newer research on this topic to ensure that the page stays up to date. With this being said, however, there were a lot of citations throughout the whole article which was definitely a good thing.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

Though I do believe that the article was well-written in a sense that it clearly explained what DVM actually is in clearly defined sections of the topic, there were no pictures or tables or drawings whatsoever, making the page extremely text-heavy. A positive view, however, is that there were little to no grammatical or spelling errors, and the article was split up into very useful headings and subheadings.


 * 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

This is definitely the weakness of this page. There were no images or media whatsoever so it was rather difficult to keep my focus just through reading the text.


 * 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

The conversations going on here are mostly regarded to the fact that this page is part of 2 WikiProjects, one for marine life and one for Limnology and Oceanography. The page is rated as high importance or mid importance for the wikiprojects. With this being said, however, there are also requests for images to be put up and on both WikiProjects, the level of quality are still "Start-Class." Hence, there is still a lot of room for improvement to be made on this article.


 * 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

I think overall, the article is in the right step towards being well-developed. Its strengths lie in the fact that it does take a lot of factual information from credible sources and that it includes a lot of very important information. However, it definitely needs help in terms of organization to make it even better. Right now, I would say that this article is underdeveloped as it is missing a couple of important sections and missing a lot of images to help explain it further.


 * 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: