User:Kacieevans/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: Freshwater bivalve
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I want to add to an article that has to do with an animal more so than river ecosystems or properties about streams.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, but I think that the flow of the introductory sentence could be better.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No it doesn't.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes. It talks about their different habitats.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It feels overly detailed with a lot of bouncing from topic to topic relatively quick.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yeah the content is relevant.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * I believe so.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, but a lot of the topics can be elaborated on.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No not really.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes the article has a neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Viewpoints no, but topics in general need to be expanded.
 * 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?
 * No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Not really. One reference is a fact sheet, which is nice, but its just a bunch of topics squished together nothing really in depth in depth.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Not at all. The authors are all old white males.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes they work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * For the most part yeah, but some of the sentences are worded weird.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not spelling errors that I noticed, but there are some weird commas.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is split into a general section and a taxonomy section but thats all.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * It includes some photos, but they could be better for sure.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The captions could use rewording, but overall they are fine.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yeah, I think that there needs to be one more in each row though, having 4 photos looks better visually than three.
 * Yeah, I think that there needs to be one more in each row though, having 4 photos looks better visually than three.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * I think that good photos tell a lot about an article/topic. Its a lot easier to learn and understand a topic with the correct photos. Also having women and other under represented individuals may have a different touch to add to article thoroughness.
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * infancy.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article has photos, and has a basic outline of what a bivalve is, and a basic outline of its taxonomy.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article needs to have some more photos, and it needs to talk about its habitats, mating style, food consumption, etc. A lot of the topics already listed needs to be expanded on.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is extremely under 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: