User:Jar07016/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Bay cat - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I was interested in the bay cat and thought it was something unique and different that I could research. It matters because the bay cat is one of the least studied wild cats and according to the IUCN is decreasing in population. My preliminary expression was that it seems like a good article with good information, but it is also short and I should be able to expand on these ideas and find new information to contribute.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

1.) The lead sentence was clear, relevant, and concise and described the bay cat. I don't think it was overly detailed, but I also think it could do a better job of describing the main sections. It seems like the threats and conservation sections need more focus in general but they were not even mentioned in the introduction.

2.) The article's content is definitely relevant to the topic and it seems like it is mostly up to date. However, the most recent date I saw used in the article was 2018, so I could probably add some more recent statistics and information. I think content is missing from the sections Threats and Conservation. In addition, the article states that nothing at all is known about their feeding ecology or reproductive behavior. There doesn't seem to be much at all in these sections and I think some new information here would be important. The article claims that the Bay cat is one of the world's least studied wild cats, which would make them an underrepresented topic.

3.) I did not notice any persuasive sentences or statements and found the article to be neutral. I did not notice any biased claims either. I do think the sections about Threats and Conservation are much less underrepresented than the sections about Distribution and habitat and Characteristics.

4.) All of the facts seemed to be supported by a cited source. The links that I clicked on all worked, were diverse, and most seemed like they supported what was in the Wikipedia article. However, the books I checked were published in the early 2000s so they may not contain the most recent information. The websites on the other hand seemed relatively short so not as much content was present.

5.) I thought it was greatly organized by section, clear and concise, and found it easy to read. I found no grammatical errors or spelling mistakes.

6.) Images are present in a visually appealing way and appropriately captioned. It seemed like they were all cited, relevant to the topic, and used according to the guidelines.

7.) It seems like there was a long revision history with people mainly stating what changes they made but I was having some trouble getting to the talk page of the article. It is a Class C article and looks like it is a part of the Wikimedia Project.

8.) The overall status seems to be relatively complete and I would agree that it is near complete, but still needs some new information and some more relevant statistics. I think it could be improved by expanding the sections about Threats and Conservation and adding newer facts to the article. Its strengths are the well organized layout, detailed information on the first few sections, and grammatical correctness.