User:Rosie Dragon/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: Geoduck
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: To be honest, I wanted to look up a strange creature to use as a test for evaluating articles. I love the strange and offbeat.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? Not really. Only a content box.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Nope.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise, especially considering that this is a science article.

Lead evaluation
The lead is concise and it does clearly describe the article's topic. However, not every fact has an accompanying citation and there were many woods that were hyperlinked to other articles which are outside of the scope of this article. Is this for clarification?

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Some of the data is more than a decade old.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? In some places yes.

Content evaluation
Citations are missing and, in some places, other users have already mentioned the missing citations. I also worry that the citations are not up to Wiki standard.

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 and there are no claims that appear heavily biased. If anything some parts feel repetitive (such as the size of the geoduck). Beyond repetitive facts, there does not seem to be any persuasion attempts.

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
Not all facts in the article are backed up by reliable secondary sources. One citation redirects to the Way Back Machine and a website that does not seem to be a reliable source of information. I do not think the sources are thorough, particularly in the culinary and industry sections. The sources are within the last two decades but nothing notable past 2014.Three links took me to the way back machine (as oppose to the current version of the websites) and one was a pdf download (which worked).

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
On the whole, the article is written well. It is concise, clear, and easy to read. I did find some typos here and there but nothing that stood out glaringly. The only thing I found strange was how the article was broken down. There are six sections, not counting reference or external links sections: Etymology, Biology, Industry, Culinary uses, Chinese import ban, and trivia. These were not categories I expected. The Industry, culinary uses, and Chinese import ban seem to be particularly weak sections. Behavior, taxonomy, ecology, evolution, internal structure, etc were missing. No specific dishes were reference nor were there more than one citation for one whole section.

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
There are three images, all from the Wikimedia (open source images), of geoducks. These help provide a visual to the descriptions used in the article. The images are well-captioned but do not provide a citation. The images are laid out alright, but not in a particularly appealing way.

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
How to pronounce geoduck was one of the first bits to be discussed. Many others did bring up the lack of citations and even the typos.

The article is rated B in all of the WikiProjects it is a part of. It is included in the following WikiProjects: Bivalves, Food and drink, China, Fisheries and Fishing, Canada / British Columbia, and United Sates / Washington.

I don't think geoducks relate to our topic (which is African American children's literature).

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
I think the article still needs work. Isn't finished in my opinion. There's so much to be uncovered here (what does the inside of a geoduck look like? how tough is the shell? what organs do they have? why do they like to live in the Pacific Northwest?). The article stays true to neutral tone and does make an effort to cite. That being said, it needs to cite more often and to expand some sections so that there is not just one course covered. Also, finding more reliable sources would be best (no way back machines!). Overall, this is an underdeveloped article that I hope to see improved upon in the future.

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:Geoduck