User:Psbheb/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: Animal Communication (Animal communication)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I was interested in analyzing how well and accurately primate communication was represented in this section.

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 offers a well-encompassing definition of animal communication, focusing on signalling theory. It's detailed and does not introduce any information that is not mentioned elsewhere in the article.

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 is relevant to the topic. Animal communication is inherently interdisciplinary—however, the article manages to integrate many discussions from related fields without any of them feeling irrelevant (e.g. animal cognition, sociology). I see a paper from as recent as 2017.

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 pretty neutral, drawing upon sources from scientific journals. The article strictly lays out the evidence rather than asserts opinion.

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
The sources are relatively updated—the most recent one I can find from 2017. It would be useful to do another literature review update from the past three years of research. Diversity of authors could be improved, but this may be a more systemic issue of science.

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 sections are very intuitive—I especially found it useful when "interspecific competition" was broken down into many different categories (e.g. prey to predator, predator to prey). It effectively broke down animal communication into many modalities.

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
Yes, there are several images of animals themselves. The article could benefit from including a few figures that are not strictly esoteric—still accessible to the public. Photos tend to be concentrated toward the right.

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
I'm struggling accessing the talk page for this. The Wikipedia breaks down the topic into more categories than in class, which is more theoretical.

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
Main information presented about primates is limited to mentioning their ability to process concepts and form gestures. This article could be improved by providing some updated examples for primates.

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: