User:SDEVER00/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating? Spotted eagle ray
Spotted eagle ray

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I choose evaluate this article because spotted eagle rays are my favorite animal and I thought it would be fun to learn more about them. Evaluating this article matters because it can ensure the correct information is there, those who read the article are being given the correct details and facts about spotted eagle rays, and wrong information doesn't get passed along. My preliminary impression of the spotted eagle ray article is that it is well researched and well written. The article provides a lot of information on different topics about spotted eagle rays, it also provides a lot of sources and seems to cite those sources properly. However, the top of the article has a message saying that the accuracy of the information may not be the best due to out of date information, otherwise the article seems good.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section: Overall, the lead is very informational and only includes information that later appears in the article, however, I would not say that the lead touches on all the major topics of the article. While the lead does provide much information about the spotted eagle ray, it doesn't provide a wide scope of information and only touches on a couple of topics. The lead is good but in my opinion could use some work in including all the major topics.

Content: The content it is relevant to the topic and speaks on all different topics about the spotted eagle ray, however the content is out of date as previously alerted at the top of the article. I wouldn't say the article is missing any content or touches on any unnecessary information but I would say the content needs to be updated. Other than the content being a little out of date, I would say the content is pretty good and has all the expected information.

Tone & Balance: The article seems neutral and I did not spot any bias claims, however, there aren't many viewpoints to take a stance on. The article is mostly facts, so there isn't anything to persuade the viewer into thinking.

Sources & References: The article and its contents appear to be backed up mostly by scientific journals, peer reviewed articles, and other reliable secondary sources, however their are two sources out of the thirty-six that come from CNN. Other than those two sources, the rest seem good, and the links work, so I would say that the sources and references are solid.

Organization & Writing Quality: The articles appear to be well written and I did not come across any spelling or grammatical errors. The organization also looks good as each topic is sectioned and labeled, and has the proper information proceeding. The articles also clear and concise in its delivery of content and is overall easy to read and understand.

Images & Media: In my personal opinion the images included enhance the understanding of the topic of the article and are laid out in a visually appealing way. The images come with caption that provide further information which is helpful, however, is lacking in contents, and from what I saw, the images all adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Talk Page Discussion: On the talk page there are messages which explain which wiki-projects included this article as a source and messages from people talking about issues and suggestions for the article. Some kinds of conversations in there are: a suggestion to stop including the death(s) the spotted eagle ray and an explanation of why that information may be necessary, questions about what a specific quote is trying to say, suggestions for sources and information that should be included, and questions about whether or not information is relevant. The article has a current status of "Good article" and is apart of two different wiki projects. Wikipedia discusses these topic similar to how we would in class, however, wikipedia is able to add links to their article that give vastly more information than a class ever could on all different topics related to and about the topic of the article.

Overall Impression: The articles overall status was good, the article can improve in some areas but was good in most. The article had strengths in: Tone & Balance, Sources & References, Organization & Writing Quality, and Images & Media, but could use some improvement in its Lead Section and Content. The article can be improved with the addition of up to date information and more content, as well as better summarization of such content in the Lead Section. Even though I believe the addition of information to the article would be helpful, I also believe the article is well developed as it touches on many topics and gives a solid amount of information about each section. Overall, I would say this article is well written and highly informational.