User:MarsAtlantica/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Predation) The Predation Article.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because predation is a topic of interest to me. Predation is important because it is a very significant relationship between animals which drives evolution and shapes the ecosystem. At an initial glance the article appears to be quite well put together. I have not consciously evaluated it using Wikipedia's standards of what makes an article good yet, so upon doing so I will have a better idea of the quality of the article.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The article on Predation is an excellent collection of information about and surrounding the subject. The article does however have a few problems which if solved would make it even better than it is in it's current state. I will start by summarizing what the article does right with the suggestion these things do not change, and then go over what the article does wrong and should be changed.


 * Right - Things the article did well which should not be changed and should be maintained in any future editing of the article.
 * Lead - The lead of the article provides an excellent summary of most of the major sections and topics of the article. The introductory sentence is concise and provides a simple, easy to understand, basic definition of predation so readers know what the article is about.
 * Content - The content of the article is very diverse but still all relevant to the topic of predation. This gives readers a broad understanding of the topic at hand while also allowing them to learn about specific aspects of predation they may be interested in. The vast majority of the content is up to date and factual.
 * Tone - The article does an excellent job presenting the topic of predation in a well-balanced and neutral way. Sections which may edge into politicized topics do not present the information in a persuasive manner, but rather an observational view of what scientific literature has discovered about predation and the effects of predation or the lack there of. Differing viewpoints of certain predation topics are presented and given appropriate weight.
 * Sources - The article is heavily and well sourced with a lot of credible scientific institutions making up the bulk of the sources. Most of the sources are relatively recent and up to date.
 * Organization - The article is well organized with high writing quality. I was unable to locate any spelling or grammatical errors.
 * Images - The article contains many high quality and helpful images which contribute well to the learning experience of the reader. Most of the images are relevant to the sections they are in and provide great examples of concepts discussed in the article.
 * Wrong
 * Lead - One major section of the article is missing from the lead. I believe the lead would be much more complete with the inclusion of the section discussing the huge impact predators have on shaping ecosystems as it is the only major section of the article that is not discussed in the lead.
 * Content - There are a few things missing in the content of the article that would greatly improve its quality. There is also a piece of information that is incorrect at worst, or misleading at best which I believe should be altered or removed altogether.
 * Taxonomic Range - The section of taxonomic range of predators goes into great detail on different examples of predatory invertebrates to give the reader a good understanding of the diversity found among them, however, the same cannot be said for predatory vertebrates. This section sums up predatory vertebrates simply as being well known among mammals and birds. This approach is not only incredibly unbalanced but assumes the reader to have a good understanding of which mammals and birds count as predators rather than providing examples of diversity among them. Given that most people are probably unaware of the broader scope of what constitutes a predator, this is a huge weakness in this section of the article. It also completely discounts predatory (non-avian) reptiles, amphibians, and fishes. Even discussion on examples of predatory plants is given more attention than predatory vertebrates in this section. I would suggest discussing examples of predatory vertebrates at least half as thoroughly and ideally equally thorough to predatory invertebrates.
 * Ambush - This sections defines ambush predators in a mostly correct manner, aside from the fact that it specifies they are animals. Based on the methods by which carnivorous plants obtain their prey, I think it would be more correct to change the wording from "animals" to "organisms" or to outright mention carnivorous plants in the section on ambush predators.
 * Solitary Versus Social Predation - A claim is made that out of the 245 terrestrial carnivores, 177 of them are solitary. This statement is false at worst and misleading at best. When I checked the source for the claim, it appears the source was referring specifically to terrestrial members of Carnivora which should be referred to as carnivorans. There are approximately 270 members of order Carnivora, most of which are predatory and terrestrial. While I was not able to find out how many terrestrial carnivores there actually are, I know this statement is incorrect when you account for the fact that there are many more terrestrial carnivores that are not even part of order Carnivora. There are carnivorous mammals that are not included, carnivorous reptiles, and may carnivorous and vertebrates which are terrestrial. I would recommend modifying the statement or removing it altogether.
 * Antipredator Adaptations - This section is very short for such an important subtopic of predation. While it does have a separate main article, the section on coevolution also has a separate main article and is much more well developed than the antipredator adaptations section. I would recommend this section of the article have more content included within it.
 * In Human Society - This section on humans very briefly touches on the predatory habits of humans, and specifically chooses to focus on the hunting habits of hunter-gatherer peoples. I would recommend this section go more in depth into human predatory behaviours such as discussing hunting with firearms and other common technologies and tactics. The brief mention on humans co-operating with dogs and falcons to hunt could be more fleshed out with additional details as well. I am also disappointed to see no mentions of animal farming as a human predatory behaviour as it makes up the huge bulk of modern predation behaviours of humans. I would recommend including information of farming in this section.
 * Sources and References - While most of the sources appear good quality I would suggest insuring that the sourced material is being used in an appropriate context as my experience with the section on solitary versus social predation made me aware of the possibility that sources are being interpreted or represented incorrectly or in a misleading way.
 * Images - There is an image in the ballistic interception section of the article displaying a chameleon with its tongue out. The image resembles a drawing, but I believe a photograph or still from a video of a chameleon using its tongue would be a much better image to have in its place. The trophic level section contains no images and would be well suited by having a diagram present to help illustrate trophic levels for visual learners.