User:Katylady1007/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: Invertebrate zoology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Honestly, I chose this article at random. I am glad I did as it ended up being a good evaluation starting point. It was not a huge article. It was simple, but it seemed incomplete. After reading through it's entirety I was starting to find items that I wanted to fix for the author! I also surprised myself, and actually ended up posting a simple suggestion to the Talk page.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, it is actually well written and describes this topic very well.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

The lead does not include a description of the major sections of this article. It seems that the article was written in stages.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No, the lead just gives a brief description of what Invertebrate Zoology is, and what an Invertebrate is. There is not much flow into the further sections for subdivisions, or history.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is not overly detailed, but they are concise and to the point. The article was only wordy in the History section.

Lead evaluation
The introduction is very short. It makes it feel like it is incomplete.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

The article is relevant to the topic of Invertebrate Zoology and how it is a subdivision of Zoology, including other subdivisions.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

Yes, the article was last edited on October 14th, 2019 @ 12:51


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Yes, the Interesting Invertebrates section seems out of place in this article.

Content evaluation
The author of this article stuck to the topic being discussed, but did add some topics that seemed out of place.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?

Yes, it seems pretty neutral overall.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, I did not find any heavily biased opinions.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No, I did not see any over or under represented viewpoints on this topic.


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No, the article reads neutral.

Tone and balance evaluation
This article was overall neutral. I did not feel that there were any opinions listed at all. The article was primarily fact based with proper citations and sources listed.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, scholarly sources have been cited where appropriate, especially in the History and Interesting Invertebrates sections. However, I feel that the introduction could have used a citation.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes.


 * Are the sources current?

All sources were scholarly articles or scientific papers from sites I am familiar with.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

There were two that had error's, and a handful that had annoying pop-ups due to linking to the article multiple times.

Sources and references evaluation
After checking the each citation listed, I found some issues. All of the citations that contained JSTRO (citation #2, 3, 4, 8, 9 & 13) has multiple links to the source. The leading source link takes you to the article, but the second source link takes you to the page that shows you a preview of the article and this page would bother you to be a member of the JSTRO Library. Especially for citation #2 as this did not contain a link directly to the article, only the distracting member pop-up page. That link needs to be removed, and just keep the first link posted that goes straight to the article itself. Citation #14 & #15, the link does not work, it leads to an Error page. Overall, all the sources that worked went to scholarly sources or scientific articles.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes, the article is very easy to read.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No, not that I could find.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The article is organized, but I also feel it is lacking information and is not complete. It is broken down into good topics, but I feel there is information that can be added to aid in the further explanation of the topic, especially the Subdivisions section.

Organization evaluation
The article looks organized, but I feel that the Subdivisions section could look better. Perhaps a better layout showing how further subdivisions of Anthropodology and Malacology would bring better structure to the page. It is helpful that it is mentioned that these subdivisions can further be divided into more specific specialties, but maybe showing an example of this should be included. It was also nice to see an explanation of what an Invertebrate is to better understand the meaning of Invertebrate Zoology.

A distracting portion of the article was how little information is in the introduction, while the History is very extensively worded. It makes the page feel like it is missing information and is not complete.

Interesting Invertebrates is a neat topic to add as it gives good examples of unique species that have been found. However, I am not too sure how these being listed here in particular are related to explaining the sub-discipline of Invertebrate Zoology itself, it feels out of place for the topic.

Resources have been cited, which is nice to see, making it helpful to find articles in reference to the historical information, interesting invertebrates and some of the sub-disciplines. The introduction is lacking any citations, and only includes links to certain words going to other pages on Wikipedia, which is helpful, but I feel that a citation would need to be included to see where this information came from, is accurate, and not just someone listing their idea of what Invertebrate Zoology is.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

There are actually no images for this topic!


 * Are images well-captioned?

No images available


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

No images available


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

No images available

Images and media evaluation
I feel that this article feels incomplete due to not have any visual representation of the topic. Maybe adding some visual explanations would help make the article seem better organized and more complete.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

There are only 4 posts on the talk page for this article. It seems that one user felt that there was a biased post in the Centuries section of the History, but it was due to the fact that this user felt information was missing, or needed to be placed in a different article. The majority of the users posting here liked the article, how it was organized and that it provided useful information. I do not agree with the first post where they state this page should have better focus on structure and physiology of Invertebrates as that would not pertain to the actual topic of the discipline.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

This article is part of two Wikiprojects: WikiProject Biology and WikiProject Animals. This article has a C-class rating, which means it is missing important information and contains irrelevant material. I would actually agree with this rating.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

The way Wikipedia differs from how the topic is discussed in class is overall organization. There is a lot of information listed on Wikipedia, but not in any true order, some information could be missing, or lack good explanation. Citations could be incorrect. When in class, we are being taught by a professor, who has greater knowledge of the topic, is good at explaining the topic in a step-by-step process to gain the overall understanding of the entire topic over a period of time.

Talk page evaluation
I actually enjoyed reading other user's view on the article. It was nice to see I was not the only one seeing an issue with the Interesting Invertebrates section. The other users were actually really nice to the author, and all made good suggestions.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?

I feel that the overall status of this article is - 'in progress'. It looks like there is information still being added to it recently, which was nice to see.


 * What are the article's strengths?

Great, simple explanations of the topic. It was very clear to understand what the author was trying to explain.


 * How can the article be improved?

Have a more extensive introduction. Adding a better explanation of subdivisions and specialties in the Subdivisions section. Adding on to Interesting Invertebrates which subdiscipline and or specialty associates with that Invertebrate.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

The article is a work in progress. It is not poorly developed, nor is it well developed. It needs to become more complete than it is.

Overall evaluation
This was a good starting article evaluation. It was simple, yet needed some work to do. Nothing crazy for edits, but further explanations, fixing some citation links, and adding a stronger introduction.

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 — ~

(I actually added to the Talk page!)


 * Link to feedback: Talk:Invertebrate zoology