User:Rd989/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: Mating call
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen to evaluate this article because it has plenty of information within the one article in relation to mating- vocalizations, mechanical calls, and speciation due to mating call differences. This topic also interests me quite a bit, and it has reference to all types of species and their mating calls, such as birds, mammals, and amphibians.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it does. It provides a good definition of what a mating call is and how it works.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it does. It provides insight into the different mechanisms to produce mating calls.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, it does not. There is some information that is not in the lead, but it in the article, but no information that is not present in the article, but in the lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is simple and concise, and does not touch on every detail, only the major sections and small important details to understand the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes. The article talks about what is in the lead, and all of the information is relevant to mating, as in why/how it works. It also provides detailed examples of certain species, such as the tungara frog.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes. It was last edited on July 19th, 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.

Content evaluation
I think this is a very well detailed article, with plenty of good content.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, it is neutral, as it demonstrates fair information published by reliable sources.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. It is mainly facts about mating, and how it works with no persuasion.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The "Speciation due to Mating Call Differences" section includes only three different types of frogs. It could have a little more variety, to show more presented information regarding this topic through the use of different species.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it does not.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, they are.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they do.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, some of them are. Some are dated to the 1980's.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they do.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. It is easy to follow and not too difficult.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No it does not.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. It is well organized into sections relevant to the article. It begins by talking about what mating calls are and how they work, and then provides examples of mating calls in different species. It then moves on to talk about speciation due to mating call differences to provide even more insight.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes. It provides images of the species it is talking about.
 * Are images well-captioned? They are simple. They could have a bit more information on what the animal is doing in the picture. It mainly just says the type of animal. On images where it does this, it provides an audio link to a song call for that specific bird, which makes it easier to comprehend.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.They all provide where the image comes from when you click on it.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes. They are all in line with one another.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are plenty of edits being made in the view history tab. In the "talk" tab, I saw that some things were removed because they did not appear constructive. Apparently, some of the edits constituted vandalism.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated well, and apart of 3 WikiProjects, such as WikiProject Evolutionary biology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It offers insight into different mating calls that I was not aware of, and different species that conduct mating calls.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article's overall status is very good. It is apart of 3 WikiProjects, and is clear and concise.
 * What are the article's strengths? The information the article provides is very strong. It is also well-organized.
 * How can the article be improved? The article can be improved by expanding the information in relation to speciation due to mating differences. It used 3 examples of frogs, and it could be a bit more diverse.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is well-developed and I would say, nearly complete. It could have some information for sure.

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: