User:Gtejeda2020/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: (link) Deep-sea gigantism
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I am interested in deep sea gigantism, and I feel like this article had a lot of good resources and explanations.

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? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? relatively concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? yes, a lot of older references with some from 2019. this topic is hard to find a lot of sources for because the deep ocean remains so unexplored.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no

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, because the deep sea remains highly undiscovered, it is hard to overrepresent the topic. the article does a good job of mentioning hypothesis as to why deep sea gigantism occurs, as there is no definitive cause or answer.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no, it's not politically or scientifically binary.

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? There are definitely more available resources that are more up to date. only 2 resources are from 2019.
 * Are the sources current? A majority are not so current, only 2 are from 2019. However, most are from after 2000.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes they do!

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is concise, yes, and well written. it is easy to understand.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? none.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is well organized, and broken down into sections well.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, however they could definitely include more photos, or comparison photos of normal sized animals compared to their gigantic counterparts.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? for the most part. there is a gallery which is nice to have all the pictures in one place.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? A lot of historical discussions, and a lot of keeping up with current events in regards to deep sea exploration. it is an ever expanding field that needs to follow advancements in technology; as technology advances, so does the opportunity for discovery in the field.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes it is part of a wiki project; marine life. It is rated as start class.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It doesn't delve too much into the history of deep sea gigantism, or how it impacts society. In class, we typically talk about the history of things which gives a nice broad overlook at the topic. this is a bit more science related, and discusses ecomorphological factors.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths? It does reach every facet of explaining why gigantism might exist, even though there isn't much evidence or explanation in literature to explain it
 * How can the article be improved? It could use some more photographs, as well as some more historical context. Maybe including some world records and dates would be beneficial.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think it is well developed in its attempt to explain why gigantism exists, however it is underdeveloped in its historical context, as it fails to talk about gigantism throughout history, or how its impacted our society and knowledge of the ocean.

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: