User:Rizzok/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: Ocean sunfish
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: My favorite deep sea animal is the ocean sunfish. They are the most pointless species I have ever learned about. It's amazing that they still exist despite natural selection. I find it amusing that the only reason they continue to survive and reproduce is the fact that they are too big for predators to consume.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes and no. It introduces the ocean sunfish but I think it could include more information about the species of fish.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes. The lead briefly states what appears later in the contents section, except human interaction.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think the lead provides sufficient information without sharing too much.

Content

 * Guiding questions

Answers written next to guiding questions.


 * 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? Not in my opinion

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

Answers written next to guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, there does not seem to be a bias towards/against ocean sunfish.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I do not think so
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not in my opinion

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Answers written next to guiding questions.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Sources range from the 40's until present, but a majority of the sources are from the 2000's
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions

Answers written next to guiding questions.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. Easy to read but thorough at the same time.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None spotted
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I really liked the organization of this page. It started with a description and biological features of ocean sunfish, then got broader about environment and interactions.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

Answers written next to guiding questions.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, but I do wish they included an image of an ocean sunfish next to a human for size comparison.
 * 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? Yes

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

Answers written next to guiding questions.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Many people are discussing what photos should and should not be used.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? FA-Class and high importance rating. This article is part of WikiProject Fishes
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? More detail

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Answers written next to guiding questions.


 * What is the article's overall status? High quality article. Relevant and the right amount of detail
 * What are the article's strengths? Well organized, good photos
 * How can the article be improved? More details on the evolutionary background of ocean sunfish
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think the article is well-developed and does not require further editing.

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: