User:Mwright0131/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: (link) Siamese fighting fish
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I've picked this article while browsing through the C-class articles and decided on siamese fighting fish because I've had many throughout my life and would like to see how much I already know about them.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
While there is a table of contents listing the various topics on the subject of Siamese fighting fish, the Lead does not summarize these topics as an introduction. The Lead does have a concise length of two paragraphs, describing the Betta fish and their well-known territorial behavior around each other, as well as where they originate from.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The article's content remains relevant to the Siamese fighting fish. Most sources linked in the content are from 2014-2019, showing that it's pretty up-to-date. There's no content that's noticeably missing, but there is content that could use elaboration. The article doesn't necessarily address topics related to historically underrepresented populations, but that doesn't mean there is an equity gap in this article. There simply isn't much correlation between Siamese fighting fish and underrepresented topics.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article has a neutral tone throughout it, with no persuasive writing towards certain opinions. Instead, there are recommendations regarding how to best keep a Siamese fighting fish and help them remain healthy. There are underrepresented topics in history content, but otherwise the topics are very well detailed.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
For the majority of the article, the facts included are backed up by reliable sources of information. However, some facts are backed by public websites that aren't typically reliable. The sources are pretty current to today, and the links to sources I've checked do work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article is written clearly and fairly easy to read. I couldn't find any grammatical errors while reading through it, but some sections could be reorganized to flow a little better on the page.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
The images included in the article mostly help with understanding the topic of Betta fish. The captions are very informative to the topic it's included in, such as color variations of Betta fish and early development. All images adhere to the copyright regulations, and are laid out evenly on the page for a good visual.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
Some of the discussion included proposed new sections, such as a section of myths pertaining to Betta fish. Other discussions included editing ideas for other sections of the page that were deemed inappropriate or misleading to the public. This article is C-rated, and currently isn't a part of a Wikiproject.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, I'd say the status of this article is decent. Its strengths include the in-depth coverage of Betta fish behavior and qualities, as well as how to keep them as a pet. However, the article can be improved in certain sections, such as the history behind Betta fish and their origins. This article is near completion, but needs some elaborations in some sections first.

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: