User:JanuarytheCalico/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: Lee-Boot Effect
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I have decided to evaluate the article for the Lee-Boot Effect. I noticed last Winter while conducting research on socio-sexual behaviour in mice that the Wikipedia page for the Lee-Boot effect was underdeveloped; this remains the case. As a result, I am interested in developing it for my Wikipedia assignment.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
As this article is a stub, the Lead constitutes the vast majority of the article. The introductory sentence is clear, concise, and well-written. It summarizes the basis for the Lee-Boot effect without over-complicating the subject. From there, the Lead begins to deteriorate. Although the remaining sentences are important to the topic, they seem disjointed and do not flow together well. This makes the Lead awkward to read. For example, the pheromone believed to be predominantly involved in the Lee-Boot effect is mentioned in the second sentence, but is not elaborated on until the last sentence of the Lead. There are many links to other Wikipedia pages which is helpful, especially for readers who may not be familiar with reproductive responses in mice. However, the Lead include additional citations to support the information.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The article is extremely short and there is much that needs to be elaborated upon. There is a description of what the Lee-Boot effect is and the predominant species in which it occurs (mice), but the article does not discuss the mechanism by which it occurs, reasons why it occurs, and if it occurs in other species.This content could be included in additional sections in the article. The most recent scientific article referenced in the Wikipedia article is from six years ago. This may indicate that the content needs to be updated if there has been more recent literature published on the topic. All of the content that is included in the article is relevant to the topic and there is no information that is irrelevant.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of the article is neutral. There are no instances where the article pushes a certain position on the readers or purposely excludes information from a particular position. As the article is very underdeveloped, all viewpoints regarding the Lee-Boot effect's mechanism, purpose, and consequences remain underrepresented. Additional research should be done to examine these aspects of the Lee-Boot effect in the literature and develop the article from there.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Although there are some references included in the article, citations are not included for all of the content in the Lead. It is vital that all information included in a Wikipedia article be supported by reliable sources and cited correctly. There are statements made in the article that are not referenced, making it questionable whether the information is reliable. For example, the article states: "The same response is invoked from isolated females when brought into contact with urine-soaked bedding from other females' cages." However, there is no citation to indicate where this information came from and if that source is reliable. The references that are included are correct and relevant and the links work. The article could be enhanced by examining the scientific literature for more recent articles about the Lee-Boot effect.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
As the article stands, there is very little content on the page to organize. For this reason, the information is not broken into relevant sections. For the most part, the article is well-written. The information in the Lead is relevant to the subject and does not have any grammatical or spelling errors. However, the flow between sentences reads awkwardly, as if the information is not connected together. It would be effective to create more of a transition between the sentences and link them together as being related to each other.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images included in this Wikipedia article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
There are no conversations in this article's talk page. This indicates that there have been very little changes made to the article and the article was not developed through the collaboration of multiple Wikipedians. The article is considered to be a stub. The banner above the article indicates that the article is lacking references and requires additional reliable sources to verify the legitimacy of the content. This article is a part of the Biology, Physiology, and Rodents Wikiprojects.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is off to a decent start. There are lots of relevant links to other Wikipedia pages to support the readers' understanding of the content. The citations that are included are correct and relevant, and the tone of the article is unbiased. However, this article exists as only stub and it needs substantial work to become a complete Wikipedia article. There is lots that can be done to improve this article. The first step would be to establish which sections need to be added to the article and begin researching additional information that can be included in these sections. For example, more information about how and why the Lee-Boot effect takes place should be added in new sections of the article. For example, it is important to provide an explanation of why the effect only manifests itself in the absence of male mice. Such explanations are not obvious to readers with limited knowledge of rodent reproduction. There are currently no images in the article. It would be effective to include images such as diagrams (such as a flow chart) of the effect's mechanism.

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: