User:Hunterft99/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: (frilled shark)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I selected this article to evaluate because my wiki project, for deep sea biology course, focuses on frilled sharks.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it describes the two existing sharks in the same genus. Although, the primary topic centers around the common filled shark and not the South African frilled counterpart.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead does a good job at summarizing the major sections such the species' appearance, locations, the diet and eating patterns, reproduction and human interaction. However, it does not really cover the discovery and history.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think it is fairly concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the article does a great work at staying relevant and stays with the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * There is content coming from a greta span of time, but the most recent source comes from 2016
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content seems to fit cohesively, although there could still be room to improve and add more detail like its genetics and morphology.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I don't think it does.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, this article maintains a neutral tone, just stating facts, that is consistent throughout the article
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * As said previously, there seems to be a lot of information coming from sources that span of 100 years of time. These are just different findings not viewpoints.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There a some sources that seemed to come from literature frumpier review journals, although many of the sources just come from websites and databases.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes they do present literature that can be accessible to read.
 * Are the sources current?
 * the source are from the late 1800s to the mid 2010's, although most come from 2000's so it would be beneficial if new sources within the last five years were added.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources are written by scientist from across the globe, spanning the U.S., Japan and more.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Many do work, however reference 3 does not as it brings you to an error web page.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I can find.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I think the article is well organizing, but there may be oppurtunity for more sections and sub sections

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes the article include images that are beneficial in understanding the Frilled shark
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes they are descriptive and to the point.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I believe so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * yes they are arranged in a way that is satisfying, makes sense and are not too distracting.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There were conversations about fixing certain word choices, removing link that did not work and adding new information like its possible threat level to humans.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is part of the sharks WikiProject and is rated GA.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * more modern information about the shark and adding more peer reviewed experiments to the resources.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think this article 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: