User:Madelinefinnegan/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: Deep-sea gigantism
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * We have briefly discussed the phenomenon of deep-sea gigantism in class. The Wikipedia article itself is rather sparse, and seemed like an appropriate place to start since it was not yet fully developed.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Lead is very clear and concise.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead hints at the possible reasons for deep-sea gigantism that are outlined in the Explanations section. It does not describe taxonomic range.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead states that "The inaccessibility of abyssal habitats has hindered the study of this topic." However, that is not revisited elsewhere in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise.

Lead evaluation
The Lead is clear and concise and sets the stage for the rest of the article. However, there are no citations in this section. Although they may be referenced later in the article, it may be important to have them from the start.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Content is relevant to topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Content is, to my knowledge, up-to-date on available information for the topic. That being said, many of the sources are from more than a decade ago.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Perhaps the history of research on gigantism could be useful here, or a comparison to island gigantism in land organisms.

Content evaluation
Given the fact that information on the subject appears to be limited, the content sections have done the best they can.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No. The claims for possible explanations do not seem to be controversial.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There do not seem to be overrepresented viewpoints.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Not particularly; it offers biological research as fact.

Tone and balance evaluation
Well-balanced tone.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Most are. In the section of examples of gigantism, only some of the examples are cited.
 * "Under conditions of limited food supply, this may provide additional benefit to large size," under the section "Food Scarcity" is a claim that is not cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * While there are only 15 given sources, this may reflect that there is not much available literature on the subject. Many of the sources are from peer-reviewed journals, but there are also sources from newspapers (without a clear author) and from a blog about deep sea biology.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Several sources are from the past five years, but most are from before 2010. The most referenced source is from 2001, and the next most referenced is from 2005.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Most links work.
 * Could not find "Stability and Change in Gulf of Mexico Chemosynthetic Communities" link.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Article is easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Does not appear to have any glaring errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Despite the fact that there is not much information on the subject, the breakdown of sections is clear.

Organization evaluation
The article is as clearly organized as it can be, given the amount of information on the topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Photos of organisms exhibiting gigantism enhance understanding of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Images are captioned with clear and concise info, including links to relevant Wiki articles.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Most images are in the public domain because they come from U.S. government authorities. The other images (which came from Flicker and a blog) were previously confirmed to have had appropriate licensing.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * They are all included in a Gallery section, except for the first photograph next to the Lead.

Images and media evaluation
Images are pulled from copyright-friendly sources. The images themselves are helpful in showing gigantism in deep sea organisms.

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 some silly back-and-forth conversations between editors from about 15 years ago considering what is a fish and how do we measure extremity. Another discussion took place about the clarity of an image and whether it seemed "fake."
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is an offshoot of the project WikiProject Tree of Life. It is Start-Class on the quality scale and Mid-Importance on the importance scale.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The talk page is much more flippant and concerns copyediting more than actual content.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page was entertaining but not particularly valuable in terms of content.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * "Start-Class" seems to perfectly describe where it is at in development.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Brevity, concision. It offers clear sections.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More information, if there is any out there. Perhaps some more reputable sources (instead of the newspaper articles).
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * This article is short, underdeveloped, and could use some rounding out.

Overall evaluation
Needs improvement in quantity of content, though quality is good. Sources should be expanded.

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: