User:Meredithc226/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: (Zoomusicology)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I personally enjoy animals and how they communicate is very important since they don't communicate like humans. Music to many people can convey many different messages from simple structural changes in the rhythm, orchestration, or phrasing. How animals communicate with their voices to sing these particular songs of mating, locating family, or whatever reason. Music connects with not only meant for people, but animals alike.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead article of the zoo musicology page does include a relevant introductory sentence that clearly explains what the topic is. As far as highlighting the rest of the article the lead fails to give you an idea of what zoomusicology's major sections could contain. Continuing on the Lead lists some well-known researchers, but fails to explain later why their work matters, or how it has impacted the field of study itself. Overly detailed would be a lax term it gets out the basic premise of zoomusicology, but that is as far as it goes.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

Music is a very broad subject and how it plays into many different things. The relevance of what the article portrays is pretty good talking about the therapeutic effects of music on animals, their references in music, or how animals use their songs to do things. The content's references look current with most of the articles coming after 2000. Most of the content outlined and discussed is relevant to the topic and connects you to many more subcategories of zoomusicology.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

Listing the facts in many ways should be pretty easy. Having a lot of scientific references helps as well. But, the article has a very direct and no frills attitude as far as the language and wording of the article. Throughout the page I did not see any heavily biased claims. Their claims are easily cited as well to make research past very easy.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The references used in the article do go back to reliable sources and about 75% of the information has been published since 2000. Articles listed in the citations is current to the topic and relevant to understanding more about it.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

For the most part the article is well written and is easy to read. The article holds two different thoughts on what zoomusicology is as far as what music does for animals and how they use it. Or, humans using animal sounds in music. Through the talk pages it highlighted this possible problem.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

For the images listed they are relevant and give reference to what the topics lend themselves to. The images are well-captioned and appropriate. Seeing that the article is lacking a lot of information from audio files and maybe more images as well. But, besides lacking in general they make up for being top- notch images and appealing.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

This article has not had a lot of help. But was apart of a WikiProject in November, 2018. I cannot see that still it needs some more edits and probably some more information and background about zoomusicology. A rating is not present that I can see at the moment. Zoomusicology is completely different than Core Humanities about early America, so studying animals in music or how animals use them.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article just needs some new life pumped into it. It is still lacking a lot from information to images and other references. The article though does easily lay out how big the scope of zoomusicology actually is. I still think it is heavily underdeveloped but has put the right foot forward in regards to the overall content so far.


 * 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?

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: