User:Isdewell/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Snowshoe Cat Article []

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I wanted to evaluate an incredibly niche topic on something I didn't know anything about so that my evaluation would be hopefully more unbiased.

Lead Section

 * The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the articles topic.
 * The lead includes a brief discussion of each section that is addressed in the article.
 * There is some discussion of "bicolour colourpoint" breeds in the first section that is not explained later in the article.
 * The brief is very concise.

Content

 * The content in the article is relevant to the topic.
 * Content is relatively current, though majority of it has not been updates since 2007.
 * Towards the end of the article the information seems to get pretty sparse. When you take a peak at the talk page it appears as though some additional information has not been published.
 * This article about cats does not delve into historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

 * The article is relatively neutral although you can tell that the page was likely authored by Snowshoe Cat owners.
 * There are a few descriptions of the breed's demeanor and physical characteristics that show some level of bias towards the breed.
 * According the the discussion on the talk page there appears to be an entire section about the UK Snowshoes breeding program that is missing. This perspective is underrepresented.
 * There are not any fringe or minority view points represented on the page.
 * There is definitely an overarching tone of adoration for the breed which is present particularly in the Characteristics portion.

Sources and References

 * Not all facts are backed up by secondary source information. There are some sources missing - particularly in the Characteristics section.
 * The sources are relatively thorough. This is a fairly niche topic so they have used the bulk of the sources at their disposal.
 * Many of the sources are from the last decade, though the page itself has not been updated in many years.
 * There is a relatively diverse spectrum of authors, though not all seem to be appropriate sources. The sources don't they include historically marginalized individuals.
 * There are definitely much better sources than some of the sources that are linked throughout the article. Many link to random websites and news articles.
 * The links work, but apparently there are some target anchors that have been disconnected.

Organization and Writing Quality

 * The article is relatively well written, though it could be more objective and concise in some sections.
 * After several scans, the article appears to be grammatically correct.
 * The article is broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic. There could be more sections too.

Images and Media

 * There are quite a few pictures of Snowshoe cats included on the page. They do seem like they may be personal images though. There are no historical or professional images.
 * Captions are short due to the nature of the images. Could use more context.
 * I believe the images adhere to Wikipedia copyright regulations.
 * The images could be organized in a more appealing way.

Talk Page Discussion

 * This is my favorite part of the article by far. At first glance the article itself is pretty sparse and unassuming, but then when you go into the talk page you can see all of the discussion about the information that is there and isn't there. There are questions about validity of sources, about descriptions, wording, information etc. Who would have thought that a niche article about a cat breed I'd never heard of!
 * The article is rated C-Class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is "of interest" to two Wikiprojects, Cats and Pennsylvania.

Overall Impressions

 * I would say that this article is in limbo. It seems to have gotten a lot of action in 2007, but since then has been neglected. It needs some sprucing up.
 * The article is concise and informative, especially considering the niche-ness of the topic. Of course, there could be more information.
 * The article could be improved by adding more sources, cleaning up some of the writing, and adding more information.
 * I wouldn't say that it is poorly developed, just underdeveloped.