User:SalaunMia/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Talk:Tortoise

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because tortoises are very interesting and I thought I could learn more about them. I thought I could learn more about their habitats, what they eat, their anatomy, and even their behaviors. Tortoises live very long and wanted to know what was the secret behind it or if there was any secret.

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.)

The introductory sentence in this article is not very clear and concise on what the topic is meant to be besides the fact that it s about tortoises. It does list a few brief sentences about the contents about the article. The lead does not include information that isn’t in the article. The lead is not overly detailed since it doesn’t give us much information. It gives the smallest amount of detail and you most likely would have to scroll to the contents of the article to see what it’s about.

This article has 29 different contents on tortoises. The articles content is relevant to the topic. The content is pretty up to date I’d say since it was last edited on May 28, 2019. The content that it’s missing is a few images that aren’t listed underneath where the images should be at. The images were removed and then edited back in through some links. There isn’t any content that I see is missing. All of the content looks pretty organized. I do not see any equity gaps in the article since the article is mainly about tortoises. It doesn’t talk about any historically underrepresented populations.

I would say that the article is from a neutral point of view. There are a few claims that seem heavily biased on how old the oldest tortoise was to ever live. There is a certain name of the kind of tortoise that was the oldest and was claimed to be the real oldest one even though the first one that was named in the article made it into the book of Guinness World Record’s. I think that their views are in between overrepresented and underrepresented. There isn’t really enough information to say which tortoise was truly the oldest based off of what the people typed in the article. They did put some realizable sources backing their information up though. I do not see any first viewpoints in this article. In some areas of the article it does seem like they are trying to persuade some users since some of the information that I am reading seems a bit biased.

It seems as if the facts are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The sources do in fact reflect the literature on the topic. They look credible. The sources are pretty current since the article was last edited three years ago. The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. They include the history to back up the data. I do feel as if there are some better sources out there that could’ve been put into this article for certain contents. The links do in fact work very well that also lead to the specific articles on where they found their information.

The writing of this article does look very professional but not sure I’d some of the content is valid or good enough to support the topic. There are some edits in the article that could’ve been left out saying that they're going to clean up certain things in the article or that they’re not sure why certain things are in the article as well. They have a content listed as, “Needs a pretty big clean-up,” I really don’t think that part needs to be in there. Some parts of the article are breeze to read and others just are a bunch of names and other things that I have never seen before. Some of the tortoise names are very unfamiliar as well. From what I have read I haven’t seen any grammatical spelling errors but I am sure that there probably is a few in there especially for the words I’ve never seen before. The article is very organized, I will give it that. All of the contents are broken down, but I feel as if they could’ve put things into chronological order or in some kind of timeline. It kind of just seems all over the place when talking about dates. Some of the contents are broken down well, but some of the contents seem as if they’re missing out on some major information. The other parts of the content are very thorough with describing their major points.

The article only contains three pictures that you can see on the page. There are links that take you to see the other pictures listed underneath the images section. The images are very well described and captioned. The images do adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations. The images are very appealing to the page and I most likely wouldn’t be as interested in the article if they weren’t there.

There were many conversations throughout the Wiki page regarding what should be added and where. It was kind of hard to focus on what th actual information was. I think that this article was a part of the Wiki-projects seeing that there were many trying to work together on what information should be added and where it should be placed. It differs in the way that it is just all over the place and doesn’t seem as if the information is good as it could be.

Overall, I think the status of this article was pretty dull. The article’s strength includes the contents that are very well detailed and had some very good sources that supported by what the topic was about. The article could be improved by having someone go back through it and deleting out the parts that don’t need to be there as I stated earlier. The article is well developed in most part but in other parts it barely had any information regarding to the topic at all. The article just looks unfinished and needs a bunch of work done to it. I know there has been a lot of research on about tortoises especially since there are people who specialize in these kinds of studies.