User:Nate1256/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.


 * Pithecopus ayeaye: (Pithecopus ayeaye)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because they are critically endangered and there is not a lot of information in the article.

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
The Lead does describe the articles topic. There are not any major sections, because it is just two paragraphs. The Lead has some information in it, but not that much.

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?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic. The content seems somewhat up to date. The latest source is from 2004. There is a lot of content that is missing. What it eats, any predators, lifespan, etc.

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 is neutral. It only states facts about the frog. There are not any viewpoints that are over or underrepresented. The article does not try to persuade readers to favor a position. There is not much information.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The facts may be backed up by the one source that is listed in the article, however, there is only one in-text citation. The source does reflect the literature on the topic. The source is from 2004, but they may update it often. The top link does not work, but the bottom link does.

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 poorly written. In the first paragraph, it introduces the frog, says where it lives, the habitats it lives in, how it lays its eggs, and what happens when they hatch, and habitat loss. The second paragraph talks about how there are not any specific conservation measures. I could not find any grammatical or spelling errors. The article is not well-organized. It is only two paragraphs. It does not include any sections.

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 article does not include any images.

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
There is not any discussion about this topic. It is part of the WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles.

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
The overall status for this article is very poor. The one strength it has is that an article was actually created for the frog. The article can be improved immensely. Images, table of contents, and more information can be added to make the article better. The article's completeness is poorly developed. There is not much to read about this frog, but there soon will be.

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: