User:Nthnjustice/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: Bighorn sheep
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I selected the Wikipedia article for bighorn sheep because it was the first topic that came to mind. I used to work as a research associate for a lab at Montana State University, where they study infectious pneumonia outbreaks in bighorn sheep meta-populations.

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's introductory sentence is indeed very concise and describes the article's topic well enough. Perhaps the introductory sentence could be more informative by specifying the taxonomic Class of bighorn sheep, as well as a more specific distribution range. The Lead does mention information featured in the article's major sections, but not in the exact same order. The Lead does not contain information that isn't present elsewhere in the article. Overall this section is concisely written and highlights important information. However, I think it could be bolstered by the inclusion of more information from the "Ecology" and "Social structure and reproduction" sections.

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
Despite referring to multiple subspecies of sheep, the content of the article consistently remains relevant to the broader topic of "bighorn sheep" overall. I consider the article to be well up-to-date, having citations published as recently as 2016 and edits made in August, 2019. There are a few statements throughout the article without citations that I believe should have at least one. Specifically in the "Ecology" section, references to predation behavior and indication of land health are not cited. The last sentence of the "Relationship with humans" section mentions hunting permits issued by the California Department of Fish and Game for bighorn sheep in two specific years. This information by itself has little meaning or relevance to the article as a whole. I think this sentence should be omitted or exist in an entirely new section related to hunting that highlights bighorn sheep permits in all states over a greater period of time. There are other instances where hunting is mentioned seemingly out of place. All of this information could be reorganized into a new "Hunting" subsection under "Relationship with humans".

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 overall is written from an effective neutral perspective. As far as I can detect, there are no instances of heavily biased claims, over/underrepresented viewpoints, or persuasive rhetoric.

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
Relative to the word-count, the article has a substantial number of references representing a thorough reach into the breadth of available literature. Facts blatantly missing necessary citation are described above under "Content evaluation". The sources themselves come from reliable and reputable origins, including a variety of peer reviewed journals and government agencies (with functional links). Many of the sources were published in the late 1990's and early 2000's which is reasonably current given the relatively low intensity of the research behind the article's topic. There are many sources from the early decades of the 1900's, which remain appropriate given the nature of the topic - where investigation of an animal's natural history was done early on and doesn't need much reevaluation.

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 well-written and easy to understand. Information in given concisely with adequate citation for further elaboration. There are no grammatical or spelling errors that I could find. The sections and subsections do reflect the major points of the topic, but there is a considerable amount of information that seems out of place in where it is provided. I do think the article could benefit from some organizational clean-up to make the sections more distinct and facilitate locating information of specific interest.

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 includes all of the images I'd expect to find in one about an animal species, including photos of males, females, adults, juveniles, and a map of the distribution range. Since the article includes information about three different subspecies of bighorn sheep, the image captions should also include which of the subspecies are photographed. All of the images (hopefully?) adhere to the copyright regulations and are presented in an aesthetically logical way.

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
The article is a part of the "Mammals" WikiProject, for which it has a B-Class rating on the quality scale and ranked Mid-importance on the importance scale. It is also a part of the "Scouting" WikiProject, where it has a B-Class rating on the quality scale and ranked Low-importance. On the article's Talk page there are a couple of mentions of conflicting statements, as well as interesting discussions about subspecies, which presumably led to there being both a "Former" and "Current" breakdown on the Article page. There is also an interesting discussion about predation, where the claim eagles can kill bighorn sheep was argued (reference to my earlier mention that this fact was not properly cited).

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 the article is informative, well-written and in congruence with the core expectations put forth by Wikipedia. The article's strengths include the plethora of references provided, the number and quality of images, and the ability to maintain brevity despite there being multiple subspecies of bighorn sheep. The article could be improved by more specific image captions, additional citations in parts of the "Ecology" section, and possibly coalescing the information about hunting into a new, discrete section.

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: