User:SarahAnnieShaw/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: Abnormal behaviour of birds in captivity
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I am interested in birds and my roommate often talks about the behaviors of birds, so learning more about them interests me.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The beginning of the article is a rather long summary of what abnormal behavior is and how it displays itself in birds. It seems more fitting to have a description at the beginning to describe the topic (briefly), and then go on to describe why that's important. It seems too detailed to be a lead on its own, and may be more fitting under content.

In the lead, it also includes a two-line sentence about a categorization system not mentioned or referenced in the article.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The content is relevant. It is not as up-to-date as it could be, as most data sourced in the article is from 20 years ago or older.

It would be more appropriate to have two sections instead of just "Causes". "Causes" and "Treatments" may be two sections that would be better not kept together.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance
The article does seem to lean towards the view that there is no help for birds kept in captivity. It may be able to be more neutral by moving the suggestion to reduce abnormal behaviors in birds to the same section where they are talking about ways to reduce abnormal behaviors, because otherwise it appears as though there are significantly less ways to reduce abnormal behaviors otherwise.
 * Guiding questions
 * The article reads neutral for the most part.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Most all seem to be, however it also references articles by PETA that have no actual sourcing of information, which seems to be just hearsay.

Clark, Pamela. "Hormonal Behavior: Is Your Parrot A Victim?" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 November 2012. Retrieved 20 December 2012. <- This has one active link to a wayback machine article post, that has no sourcing of information.

One source is beautyofbirds.com, which references other sources at the bottom of their article that can be read to get 'similar' information, but does not seem to be an accurate source for information itself. It includes at the bottom of its website the phrase, "Information contained on this website is provided as general reference only. For application to specific circumstances, professional advice should be sought."

Pet Bird Training and Behavior: (n.d.). Retrieved February 21, 2020, from https://www.beautyofbirds.com/

At one point the article claims that there is not much evidence to support the idea that birds kept in captivity may exhibit less abnormal behaviors when introduce to other pairs of birds. Their attributed source is from 1970 and is out of date as new data is available currently. One such article would be: "https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e4c3/3ae8af057b079903de3b9829ef7f8bb21f72.pdf"

15/41 sources are older than 20 years.

29/41 sources are 10 years old or older.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

It is well-written and easy to read. No outstanding grammatical or spelling errors.

It could be better organized, as stated in content.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

It includes one image and it does adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. It is captioned well.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The article was originally two different articles that were merged into one. Most of the discussion seems to be upon the merge.

It has two discussions over parts of the article:


 * Jealous parrot
 * Laying infertile eggsBut neither are large parts of the article and seem to be more of 'throwaway' points. They are both conversations that have not moved since 2012.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article is very strong and would be hard to edit much of anything beyond structure and perhaps updating references.


 * 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?

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: