User:Marquette Mutchler/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: White-breasted antbird
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because it is an antbird species one of my friends studies.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. The first sentence introduces the species, its scientific name, and its placement in Thamnophilidae to give context in phylogenetic relationships.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * This article is very short, so no major sections are highlighted. The lead section (and the only section) briefly covers most topics covered more in-depth in other bird articles.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Again, no other part to this article other than the lead so no.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is very short and gives a good general overview of this species.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content covers behavior, diet, habitat, range, and general context of phylogenetic position.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content given is correct, but the lack of content is not up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is plenty of content missing. Information on nesting, molt, vocalizations, plumage, specific range in Brazil, relationships to other related antbirds, etc.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Topics covering neotropical species, especially amazonian antbirds are relatively little-studied. This specific species and topic are overall part of an underrepresented topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * With the little information given, yes. All things stated are purely factual with no bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No. What little is stated is general information one would find in most sources that discuss this species.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No. Very little information is given in the article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No. There isn't even the presence of a narrator voice in this article.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes. The three sources that are references for the information published come from reputable places. This includes BirdLife internationl and IUCN red list, Handbook of the Birds of the World, and the Wilson Bulletin.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No. There is more work on this species + general information that could be included.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Generally, yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Not necessarily.
 * 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.
 * 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?
 * With such little information, there is no organization.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article only includes one image of the bird.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No. The image of the bird does not give a caption other than the common name. Labels indication male vs. female plumages and position, artist, etc. are not given.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, when clicked on the author and source are given.
 * 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?
 * No conversations have occured.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Yes, it is part of WikieProject Birds. It is a stub-class article rated as low-importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Not sure what this question is asking.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Stub-class and low importance. It is very incomplete.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Brief, unbiased, and factual
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More current information and specifics on this species could be added.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Very underdeveloped. What is included right now is minimal, but not bad.

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: