User:NovakLeon/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: Hylodes japi (Hylodes japi)
 * In addition to my burgeoning interest of the sexual behaviors and sexual determination mechanisms of amphibians and frogs, I chose this article for two specific reasons. The first is personal, considering that my cousins rescued a frog from this particular genus and have contributed much to my understanding of this frog's anatomy, diet, stationary behavior, as well as ecological constraints. The second is more so technical, considering that this article derives its information exclusively from one research database and one article, amounting to only two sources being the basis for this article that is supposedly published on a public, accessible, and reliable scale. In spite of that, only two revisions have been made to this article from four years ago and fail to consider the expanding body of research considering the extraordinary mating and sexual behaviors exhibited by this small frog.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * The lead statement is only one sentence long and succinctly describes the frog's assignment in a particular family of amphibians. It fails to reference any other information summarized in the following subsections nor does it include novel, captivating, or holistic remarks that would objectively tie the article together. Overall, the lead statement can be expanded upon significantly to incorporate more detail aside from a limited taxonomic description of the frog, such as habitat, its most noticeable or popularized behaviors, or known physiological structures about the frog.


 * 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
 * The content of the article does not necessarily appear up to date with regards to the research on the sexual behavior, vocal displays, and genome of these small Brazilian frogs. Last revisions on the article were made back in 2016 (approx. 4 years ago at the time of this publication) and it appears no modifications or discussions on the talk page have been issued since. Furthermore, there appears to be an abundance of content on the anatomy of the frog and surface level evaluations of its ecological behavior, but little to do with it the molecular or enzymatic responses experienced by the frog; migrational patterns; evolutionary pressures; or social interactions that are often accounted for in non C-class articles about frog species. Eighteen articles alone mentioning these patterns and behaviors in Hylodes japi were published since 2018, but none have been referenced since the second (and last) revision in March 2016.


 * 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
 * The article is neutral and expresses little bias towards one position, though in numerous points throughout the article, the wording becomes incredibly analytical and quantitative. In other words, numerous approximate measurements have been dropped throughout the text, suggesting that a considerable portion of the article contains information that was not critically analyzed or distilled down into summative statements that could be publically assessed.


 * 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
 * Links do work in the article, but the primary sources is more of a observational forum rather than a journal or article publication. The first primary source is comprehensive and thorough, but inclusive of certain details that either are not relevant or beg additional questions/reasonings into the behavior of the frog in the first place. The secondary source supporting the article is adequate but not sufficient to bolster all the information suggested in the primary source, considering that the article is only composed of two sources. Furthermore, both sources are only from 2015, and as mentioned previously, numerous articles on Hylodes japi and its common relatives have been published since then. As such, some of this information may be outdated, contradictory with present research, or failing to consider certain exceptions within the genus.


 * 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
 * While the article is grammatically correct, the syntax of the article requires further adjustment, on account that the cadence of the article seems choppy and the overly quantitative, numerical phrases could easily be condensed down into broader, more digestible sentences that would prevent the reader from being inundated with unnecessary information.


 * 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
 * The article includes a fairly limited amount of images concerning the appearance or behaviors of Hylodes japi, with two out of the three media included on the page being videos from PLoS on YouTube. A number of verifiably accurate images are available through journals and secondary sources rather than the stock photo of mating activities that was included in the beginning, and though the videos in the article are within reason, their adherence to the copyright law instituted by Wikipedia is a little dubious. Furthermore, the two videos appear to be documenting similar behaviors and are organized near one another in an unappealing manner, indicating that the article is indeed in need of new photos or other videos documenting different engagements of the Hylodes japi species other than the vocal mating calls it performs.


 * 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
 * There are no comments on the Talk page, which demonstrates the lack of upkeep with this particular species of frog and the absence of consideration when it comes to the expanding body of research occurring in the Southern coastlines of Brazil with Hylodes japi. Rated low in importance and C-class, the article is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, which is encouraging but defeating at the same time considering the relevance this species of frog has in understanding animal frequencies during mating and ecological pressures produced by human intervention, such as deforestation and climate change.


 * 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

Overall, this article is not a disappointing introduction into the behavior and surface anatomy of Hylodes japi, but considering its age and the infrequency at which it has been updated, it certainly can be improved upon to include emerging information on its genetics and ecological involvement. Considering the recent attention that Brazilian frogs have been getting for the new mechanisms of sexual behavior that they have been exhibiting in addition to the interesting biochemical pathways that define their development, it is important to assist in the expansion of this underdeveloped article through the citing of additional resources and the streamlining of observational facts already included in the article.


 * 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: