User:Megaladon 16/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: Hypoxia in fish
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * My major interest in life is aquatic systems and the creatures within them. This seemed like the most interesting topic of the ones listed.


 * Guiding questions


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

Lead evaluation
'''The lead is concise and does a good job at mentioning some of the article's major sections. It was easy to follow and held a pretense that this would be a well-established article.'''

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Appears to be
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do not believe so

Content evaluation
For the most part, the information presented was concise and understandable. The information presented was well-written and very informative. There were times I found myself unable to focus as there was a lot of information thrusted upon the reader, but that can be simply fixed by going back and re-reading the information.

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 over-represented, or underrepresented? Perhaps some portions were thinner or thicker than others, but I do not believe anything was over-represented or underrepresented. It was well balanced.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone was neutral as there was no political agenda or any agenda really being presented. It was purely facts being stated in a concise way. The article was rather balanced, even if there were portions thicker than others. This just may be due to a lack of information on that viewpoint or just limited information.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? It appears so, yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes (last updated this year)
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
There are 112 references available in the form of links within the article and then cited at the end of the article. From the sources I have clicked on, they all seem reliable.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article was concise, but hard to read at times due to the amount of information presented all at once.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I don't believe so (although the use of 'fishes' bothers me)
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, absolutely.

Organization evaluation
It was well-organized and there were distinct headers before every new change in topic or subtopic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There were 2 total images that were graphs
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, they detail the graphs well
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe so
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not really, they are small and centered in the corners

Images and media evaluation
There were only two graphs presented and they were - for the most part - captioned well. There was no video media present.

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 is no conversations occurring in the talk page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article was rated B-class; This article is WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We haven't discussed Hypoxia if Fish in class?

Talk page evaluation
There is not much offered here as there is no discussion occurring.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? I would say this is a very knowledgeable article.
 * What are the article's strengths? It has been reviewed several times with many outside resources, making it a fantastic starting point for learning about fish hypoxia.
 * How can the article be improved? I believe the article is well-written and truthfully could not find something to alter. The only complaint is the amount of information thrusted onto the reader at once, but that is an easy fix on the reader's part. Just re-read the parts not understood.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? This is article, in my opinion, is well-developed.

Overall evaluation
I believe this article is well-written, well-developed, and rather trustworthy. It comes with over one hundred sources/references, all with links to other articles and published works. This is a great starting place for someone to begin reviewing Fish Hypoxia.

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: