User:Phxntxsos/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Article: Bipedalism

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
why you chose it, why it matters: My Our Seven group's chosen theme is "bipedality", and this article seemed appropriate. This article is important in addressing this topic because it examines bipedal motion as a means of transportation and its history in both human and non-human species.

what your preliminary impression of it was: The article seems well-organized and well-cited, if rather shorter than other Wikipedia entries.

Lead section

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Somewhat; they list the species that are addressed, but not topics such as the "Physiology" and "Evolution of Human Bipedalism" sections of the article.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?: Both; it is detailed in the listed animals, but is, again, lacking in mentioning all of the relevant sections.

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? N/A.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Mostly.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? The listed sources span a wide range of time (1871-2021), though it does include a very recent source.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I don't know.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? No, the sources seem to be reliable.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization and writing quality

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Some grammatical errors and some spelling variations (such as British vs American English; which is preferred?)
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Some.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? 2/3 are. The last one does not line up properly, and is a bit distracting.

Talk page discussion

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Debates, discussion on the validity of sources and relevance of details.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Rated "S", yes.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The Talk page appears to be more of a space for debate and discussion than our more lecture-based class.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? Functional.
 * What are the article's strengths? Human bipedality.
 * How can the article be improved? Adding more detail.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Underdeveloped.