User:RafiKhandaker/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: Ripley's Aquarium of Canada
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I have chosen this article to evaluate due to my interest in major aquariums.

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 give an introductory sentence that concisely describes the topic of the article. The attraction is identified and we are given the location of it. We are not given a brief description of the major sections of the article. We are, however, given brief characteristics of the attraction which spur interest in the article. The lead gives just enough information for the reader to continue to the major sections of 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?

Content evaluation
The majority of the content is relevant to the topic, however there is some content in the history section that seems out of place. Resistance to the aquarium can be an entirely different section. The story of a naked man entering the shark tank is unnecessary. Most of the content seems to be from the time period of the attractions opening with no recent updates to the content.

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 in tone. Its major mission seems to be to inform the reader about the attraction. Most of the information seems to be emphasized to the exhibits of the attraction, which further highlights the weakness of the other major sections.

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 majority of the sources seem to be articles from news outlets or tourist sites. These are not the best sources of information. No recent information has been added from updated sources.

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 major section on the exhibits of the attraction is very well organized. It has a concise lead as well as a bullet-ed list with more detail. The other major sections do not have as a clear structure as well as seem to be lacking thorough information. The article overall seems to be missing information that can further strengthen the article.

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 media of the article can be updated to be more appealing. With an attraction like an aquarium, there is a lot of content present to help the article look visually appealing. There is only one image per major section which does not give a strong visual representation of the attraction.

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 talk page consists of only one question that has gone unanswered. This question was asked in 2014. The quality assessment of the article is start-class.

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 article overall seems to be neglected and of low importance. Only one major section seems to have been thoroughly written while others lack structure and content. There can be an addition of other major sections as well as more up to date information to strengthen the article. Overall, the quality assessment for this article is accurate.

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: Talk:Ripley's Aquarium of Canada