User:Madig23/Evaluate an Article

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


 * Name of article: (link) Talk:Antarctic toothfish
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.- I have chosen to do this article because it was a article I knew nothing about and I thought it would learn something new and exciting.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No the article does not.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No it does not.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Yes

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes it is
 * Is the content up-to-date? No it is from 2009, but unsure if new information has come to news.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, the article doesn't talk a lot about the fish until you click and go to a different article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No it talks about a fish species that is not known to a lot of people due to the fact that the fish lives in Antarctica.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article persuades one to be curious about fish but does not talk about persuading one way or another. There are not two sides to this fish.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes there is other links
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they do.
 * Are the sources current? Not since 2009
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No because it is about fish.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The only behind the scenes topic that I could see that would be a topic are if the threatened or endangered.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is well rated.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It is not a biased topic it is just a general topic about about a fish. Little to no controversy.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article is in good standing.
 * What are the article's strengths? It gave good factual information about a fish that is not known well to the general public.
 * How can the article be improved? It can talk more about the predators and the food for the fish and talk about why the fish are not well known.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article seems underdeveloped compared to some of the other articles, I am unsure if this is due to the publisher or if there is just not a lot of information on the Antarctica toothfish.

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: