User:Katehaertl/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Cat

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to edit this page because I love cats. Additionally there is a great deal of information on the page, and I figured there would be a lot to pay around with.

Evaluate the article
Overall this is a good article. There are multiple sources per paragraph, with well-thought-out information covering various topics regarding cats. The tone seems very neutral and the content is unbiased. The organization is a bit odd as the article goes from talking about cats in history, to prey to mating.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Its overly detailed. It more of a body paragraph than and introduction.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes Is the content up-to-date? Yes Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? No Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Not applicable.

Is the article neutral? Yes Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The whisker section could be expounded on. Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? No applicable Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes Are the sources current? Yes Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Yes Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Not applicable Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Possibley, however, I think the sources are really solid. They cite journal articals, specilists etc. Some of their information coulb be more recent, but I dont think information on cats is changing rapidly. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? The only errors I saw were gramatical, including where to add or deleate commas. Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes Are images well-captioned? Yes Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? In the talk page peole are talking about the vagueness of the introduction, gramatical errors, and general suggestions about topics and content. How is the article rated? Its not its about cats. Is it a part of any WikiProjects? No How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We havent talked about this in class.

What is the article's overall status? I couldnt find a rating, but I think overall it is a really solid article. What are the article's strengths? It goes into great depth on the topics it discusses. It pays attention to the details, discussing cats personalities, claws, balance etc. How can the article be improved? Their are some areas that need better citations. Some of the areas are done really well, and some have citation problems. How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? i think the article is really well-developed. Great information and lots of sources. Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? No