User:Marksbeans/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: Guppy Mating
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

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
All of the content provided is relevant, with many recent references. Although, it would make more sense to include the Reproduction section within the mating section.

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 and appropriate.

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
There are too many sentences throughout lacking citations. Additionally much of the content in the Mating and Reproduction sections/subsections reads as if it is directly from a scientific manuscript, rather than being interpreted and written newly. Not only does this affect the flow of the article, but it makes it harder to understand. Moreover, there are numerous technical terms used which ought to be linked or defined.

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
These articles sections would benefit from general language/grammar revisions. As stated above, many of the sections read like paragraphs from a scientific manuscript and feel out of place in this article. Additionally, there are portions of certain paragraphs that provide general information, rather than information specific to the species.

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
The media use is sufficient. Although, the picture of the female and male fish should specify which sex is on which side (ie, Female on the left, male on the right).

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
This article is apart of the Aquarium Fishes and Fishes WikiProjects, and is listed as level-4 vital article in Biology; rated C-Class.

Many of the issues I found in these sections are echoed on the talk page; specifically : lack of citations, grammatical issues, the author using "in an experiment" and similar phrasing.

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 article is well developed but certainly needs to be revised, with more citations, hyperlinks, and concise language. However, the sections the authors included are appropriate and the effort to include relevant scientific studies is commendable.

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: