User:KaylaCarleton/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: Ichthyosaur
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I am deeply interested in paleontology and hope to do a masters project working with marine reptiles.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


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

I beleive so yes, though perhaps the opening sentance could have been a bit more in depth.


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

Yes. I think the lead does a good job of summarising the following sections despite the fact it could not cover all the sections in its summary. Though, for this particular article it would be unreasonable to cover some topics.


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

No, however there is one fact ( that one Ichthyosaur species lasted until the late cretaceous) that is only slightly covered in one or two sentances in the sections.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

I think the lead is concise, however I do beleive it could be further perfected.

Lead evaluation
Overall the lead is well written and sumarises the oncoming content in a concise and clear manner.

Content

 * Guiding questions


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

Yes, the content stays relevent to the topic.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

Somewhat, the "History of discoveries" takes us up to the year 2003 in information and could be updated further. Most recent cladogram is from 2010 and surely could be updated. Up-to-date additions from 2018 could be fleshed out a bit more.


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

While the existing content could be updated and better sourced there does not seem to be content that does not belong. More depth could be added to most of the many topics brought up on this page.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?

Yes, the article is nutral and does not pick sides or try to sway the reader a particular direction. for most of the article.


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

Yes, the claim that ichthyosaurs had scales seems skewed to one position using language such as "true impression of the skin" and dismissing other resarch rather than staying nurtal.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?


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

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


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

No, some claims are strange such as that "Ichthyosaur coproliths, petrified faeces, are very common, though, already being sold by Mary Anning." Is she still selling them from beyond the grave? What does her selling of the coproliths have to do with their commonality? This statement is not backed up with any paper and is alltogether odd.


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

No, some sources are news articles about scientific articles, which is nice but not an accurate/valuable source.


 * Are the sources current?

There are few current sources and those that are (2018) are not expanded upon greatly.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Some links lead to other articles i.e. the link for "Joseph Anning" leads to Mary Anning's wikipedia page, which is somewhat relevent to him but is a misleading link none the less.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


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

Not nessassirally, just like this review, there are many gramatical errors and generally strange sentance structures present in this article.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

There are some grammatical errors, mostly pertaining to strange sentance structure and comma splices.


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

Yes, the article flows well and logically from past to present and etc. The article is broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Yes, I really enjoyed the images on this article. There are images within almost every section of the article and they do line up with what is being discussed within the article.


 * Are images well-captioned?

Somewhat, some photos do not say who drew them, some do not go into much detail and sympally state a species name with a link,


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

I am unsure, as most seem to be however I can not seem to tell for some photos from scientific journals.


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

Yes, the images vary from side to side but were not intrusive on the text or disorganised in appearance which I liked.

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 many conversations going on about phrasing, scientific accuracy, missing & irrelevent information and general interest questions.


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

The article is not rated by wikipedia but is part of 4 wikiprojects all of which rate it as B-class, High-importance.


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

The conversations are very relaxed and I am happy that there is open conversation going on behind the scenes.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?

The article does not have a status & is uncategorized by wikipedia.


 * What are the article's strengths?

The article has an excelent base that covers most of the information pertaining to the subject.


 * How can the article be improved?

Expanding on, and updating, the information along side adding more accurate references to back up claims made will make this article much better.


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

I beleive this article is well-developed but could use more work to really make it great.

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: Talk:Ichthyosaur

Feedback was left in the Phrasing section.