User:Ksilver19/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: (link) Flehmen response
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: This article discusses a behavioural response that was novel to me and seemed interesting. It is displayed in various animals, including tigers and horses, which are animals that I have some knowledge about and enjoy studying.

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 which describes the topic by introducing what the behaviour is. It goes on to mention topics covered further in the rest of the article, including the mechanism and function of the behaviour, and various taxonomic groups in which the behaviour is found. The Lead does not mention any extraneous information and remains concise, while including enough detail to introduce the reader to the topic.

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
I found that this article clearly communicated the intended information about the behavioural response. Content was well-explained in a simplified manner that made it easy to understand. Almost all of the information was relevant and useful, however a section was included at the end of the article under the heading 'Similar responses' which may be unnecessary, as this article is discussing only the Flehmen response. Most of the content seemed to come from reasonably recent sources, so it seems to be mostly up-to-date. There was only a single sentence included in the 'Discovery' section, so it may be useful to add more information about this, such as how the response was discovered, in what animal, and if or how the descriptions of the behaviour changed from when it was initially described to the later descriptions. Some extra examples in various parts of the article may be useful to support the points being made, for example in the Inter-species communication section under the 'Function' heading, where only a single example is mentioned.

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 written is a very neutral tone, and does not seem in any way to be biased or attempting to persuade the reader. Information is presented in a straightforward manner and does not seem to be expressing any opinions.

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
This article could be improved by adding more citations. For example, in both the Lead and 'Description' sections, no citations are included. This makes it difficult to verify if the description of the behaviour is correct. Therefore it would improve the integrity of the article if more citations were used throughout to support all claims made. A good number and variety of references are included in this article, which overall seem to be reliable and unbiased. There are many reasonably current sources, however most of the scientific journal articles referenced are older. It may be beneficial to search for any recent scientific articles on this topic, and to add some newer descriptions or findings if they exist. Most of the links direct the reader to the correct page, however a few were broken or did not lead directly to the source, for example numbers 11 and 14.

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
I found this article to be well-written, clear, and easy to follow. Information was explained in a way that concisely communicated the important concepts in the article. Both the grammar and spelling in the article were good, and no errors were found. The article was well-organized and broken down into appropriate sections. However, I would suggest changing the title of the 'Mammals exhibiting' section to something more clear, such as 'Examples of mammals exhibiting the behaviour' or 'Examples of the behaviour in nature'. The 'Similar responses' section may not be necessary.

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
This article includes a good variety of examples of animals displaying this behaviour, which aids the reader to understand the topic. It may be beneficial to add an image or diagram of the Jacobson's organ which is involved in the response to aid in comprehension of the mechanism. All images include clear captions, and seem to adhere to copyright regulations. The pictures are included in appropriate locations in the article.

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 includes some brief suggested edits or additions to the article, however there doesn't seem to be any ongoing conversations. There are a few questions regarding relevance of some information or pictures, as well as requesting sources, but they do not seem to have been answered.The article is rated as C-Class and is part of WikiProject animals. This particular topic has not been discussed in class, however wikipedia editors make valid points about what should or should not be included in the article, and show the importance of critical thinking when creating an article.

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
Overall, I would say this is a good article, although it can be improved. Its strengths include the clear and concise explanations of important topics, as well as good organization that makes it easy to follow. To improve the article, I would suggest the addition of more recent information from scientific studies or articles, and the addition of citations throughout the article to support all claims made. Revisions should be made to the references list to make sure all links direct the reader to the correct source. Extra examples to back up the concepts mentioned would be useful. This article is slightly underdeveloped, but with a few additions and some editing, I believe it would become very informative and complete.

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:Flehmen response