User:Jg6446/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Invertebrate Zoology

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 it's related to the subject of this class, zoology. The article matters because it explains a subdiscipline of zoology. My first impression of the article was that it was very short and might not have a lot of information.

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.)

To start off, the lead section was very short with only two sentences. The first sentence was a clear definition of the topic and what it's about. The second sentence was examples of different invertebrates. However, the lead didn't have a brief summary of the history of invertebrate zoology, even though most of the article is about that.

For the content of the article, it did have relevant and up-to-date information. There are three sections, with the largest one being about the topic's history. Under the "History" section, it talks a bit too much about people and their biological discoveries. A good amount of the information doesn't need to be there, since it doesn't closely relate to invertebrate zoology.

The article's tone and balance is fine. It has a neutral point of view, doesn't seem heavily biased, and it doesn't attempt to persuade the audience into favoring one thing over the other.

All the facts seem to be backed up by reliable and relevant sources. Some of the sources aren't current and date back decades. This makes sense for some of the facts, since they're about personal discoveries and such, published by said people. The most recent source is from 2017. Lastly, 2 links unfortunately led to a "404 Page Not Found".

The article is well-written, has no grammatical errors (or at least I didn't see any), and is broken down into sections that reflect the main points of the article.

Unfortunately, this article doesn't include any images. It would have been great to have some in the lead section (maybe an image of an animal with no backbone) and the "Notable Invertebrates" section since it gives examples of specific invertebrates that could easily be looked up and put in.

In the talk page there are comments on what people thought, what the author did good, and suggestions on what they could improve on. For example, one person mentioned that the heading "Interesting Invertebrates" could be seen as bias. So, the author or someone else made the change to "Notable Invertebrates". The article was rated C-Class. It is part of WikiProject Animals. The way Wikipedia discusses this topic is different from how we discuss it in class because Wikipedia only covers information on a single topic of zoology, while in class we cover multiple aspects of zoology.

Overall, the article seems incomplete/underdeveloped. It talks a bit too much about the history of zoology, without going into much detail on the subject of the article, invertebrate zoology.

--Jg6446 (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)