User:Kensarah1234/Evaluate an Article

Article Evaluation
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Infanticide in primates
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because it discusses a topic that I know very little about and did not realize was an act non-human primates did.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead does include an introductory sentence that describes the article in a clear way. The sentence could have included some examples of what exact non-human primates do this behaviour. It also could have mentioned that this behaviour is not common in many non-primates and the reason is unknown. There is a brief description of the main topics that will be discussed, describing several hypothesis about why the non-human primates do this act of killing. The Lead does not include any information that isn't already present in the rest of the article, as it is only 2 sentences long. It is not overly detailed, and could have included more detail to explain the content of the article. It is concise and straight to the point but may be lacking in detail.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The articles content is relevant to the topic. In the Lead it states that there are 5 hypothesis in total that explain Infanticide, and each of these sections explain them with relevant and coherent information. Majority of the sources that are cited were published in the late 1900's to early 2000's. The most recent article being from 2017, thus much of the information throughout the article is not up-to-date. In the Lead there should be a sentence or two introducing how there are adaptive counter adaptations to infanticide which is discussed towards the end of the article. Within the section called Sexual Selection there is a subsection named Paternal Infanticide which could include some more information and details to clarify this certain behaviour better. Information could include a definition of what this particular infanticide is, examples of non-primates that do not exhibit this, and how they used the DNA analysis that they referred to to conclude that paternal infanticide was not exhibited. Many of the terms that are used have a link attached which is a great addition to help viewers get a better understanding of the article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral with no apparent, strong bias. It discusses each hypotheses for infanticide in a non-bias and fair manner, stating scientific findings rather than voicing an opinion about them. One viewpoint that could have more representation is the paternal infanticide, but this could be underrepresented due to a lack of information so more research could be done for this part. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader towards a particular belief. There are no sentences that say, "This is wrong" or anything that could be a personal belief. Each piece of information is stated in a professional manner.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Not all the facts in the article are backed up by a reliable source, as many of the facts to not have any citations linked to them. An example of this is the first sentence of the sub section Maternal Infanticide in the section Parental Manipulation. This sentence is stating that maternal infanticide has only been found several times, since it is worded as a scientific fact than it should have the direct source cited. There are several other facts that should also be studied that are found throughout the article. Several of the sources linked to articles that could only be read in full by purchase only, but by reading the available abstract and title it did appear to be reliable and reflect the information found in the article. Each article was published by a reputable publication such as Springerlink and Wiley Library. The sources are not current. The most current source was from 2017, with most of them dated in late 1900's. All of the citation links worked except for citation number 13. The doi link does not work as it brings you to an error page, and this citation also includes that this source is inactive as of 2019-08-19. The links that are attached to terms throughout the article do work and provides a good definition.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is coherent, clear, has a great flow, and is easy to read. There are no evident grammatical or spelling errors. The article is also well organized, with larger sections being broken down into smaller, relevant subsections to further expand the topic. The subsection called Paternal infanticide could be included under the section called Parental Manipulation, rather than Sexual Selection. The main headings are larger than their respective subheadings, making evident what belongs to head heading.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and media evaluation
There are three images found in the article. The images are of different non-human primate species that are either feeding, perching, or nursing their young. These photos do not offer a direct, enhanced understanding of the topic as these photos are of every day behaviours and not of infanticide. The third photo of the primate feeding their young could be an example of the concealed ovulation that is being discussed in the respective topic, but it is not stated if it is presented in the image. Each image has its source, details of permission, and more details about its origin attached to them. Each image is also laid out in an organized way, being placed beside the topic that is discussing that particular species. This allows viewers to read each topic and have a visual aid to assist them that is in reach.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


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

Talk page evaluation
The talk page is very limited with only one box explaining where it belongs. It belongs to a Behaviour Ecology course at Duke University with the year being 2017. There are no ratings or WikiProjects stated.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The articles overall status would be good but definitely could use some improvement. The strengths include credible sources and links attached to terms that the public may not know. The article could be improved by including any information that is more current and using more images that show any effects of infanticide. I would assess the articles completeness as underdeveloped.

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: