User:Mnjenkins22/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: Whale fall
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I have chosen this article because I think it is a very interesting phenomena, and it has a decently sized talk page to look over.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it defines what a whale fall is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * I feel as though the Lead section is a little lengthy and does not concisely provide and overview of the whole article. The first paragraph seems to briefly describe major sections of the article without spelling them out.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * It explains how the spacing of whale falls along migration routes are beneficial for larvae dispersal, but does not elaborate on this topic elsewhere.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead could be shortened by removing some unnecessary information and placing some other facts or details later in the article.

Lead evaluation
I think overall the first paragraph does the best job of briefly describing the topic. I think the next few paragraphs can be condensed into one to better summarize some main points.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, I like that they included an anthropogenic effects section.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * I would say so, especially considering that this is a relatively recently studied phenomenon.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The paleontology section seems a little out of place. I think that it would be helpful to more clearly state how this section contributes to the topic ("fossils from whale falls have helped elucidate evolutionary pathways...etc) or to take out this section.

Content evaluation
I think that the content was mostly relevant to the topic, and that it did a good job of breaking things down like the stages of decomposition. But, I think there were a few sentences placed randomly throughout the article that could have been better placed in other sections. For example, there is a section for comparison with other large food falls, but the article is peppered with sentences comparing whale falls to some other animals or to coastal falls.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, besides the one sentence that is vague and not referenced, mentioned down below.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I don't think so.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Tone and balance evaluation
This article does a good job of remaining neutral and presenting plenty of data that is factual.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The first sentence of the anthropogenic section is "It has been suggested..." which seems too vague to be credible. Who suggested that information? It is not cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There are lots of sources which represent a thorough search for information.
 * Are the sources current?
 * There is one source from 1989 that is cited twice in the references section, but the other sources are from the last 20 years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links work.

Sources and references evaluation
Each fact is referenced within the article and has plenty of sources to provide a comprehensive view of the information.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, I think the sections are broken down into small enough chunks of information so that it is not too overwhelming.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There was one grammatical error that I pointed out in the talk page: there needed to be an extra comma in order for the sentence to make sense.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I think that the discovery section should come first to provide some background of what has thus far been studied (aka: not a lot) and why it has been hard to study. The article would then progress into the sections concerning the ecosystem.

Organization evaluation
I think that the sections could be rearranged in an order that is more logical, but overall the division of the information makes sense and provides useful information.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is one image of whalers that seems outdated and does not enhance an understanding of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The images are well captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * All of the pictures are in the public domain.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * They are off to the side so as to supplement the written information, but not take away from the article.

Images and media evaluation
I don't think the whaling picture is particularly useful, but the other three pictures are interesting!

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * A few external links were modified, and there was a question about whether the metric system should be used.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * I found this article through the C-class links, and it is part of three WikiProjects: Cetaceans, Mammals, and Oceans
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We haven't directly talked about this topic in depth in class, but it addresses things like nutrient availability and carbon sequestration, which have been described in class.

Talk page evaluation
There seems to be conversation between people in the talk page, indicating that it is useful for improving the article and improving the publics understanding of the article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It is a page under the C-class Oceans articles, under the WikiProject Oceans.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is thoroughly sourced and hits what I think are the major points of the topic.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * I think it could be organized in a more effective and succinct way.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think it is in the middle of the road. It has the necessary skeleton, but just needs a little touching up.

Overall evaluation
Overall I enjoyed reading this article and thought it contained useful information.

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: Talk:Whale fall (my comment is at the bottom of the page)