User:Sarahsinon/Evaluate an Article

Sarahsinon/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: (Atlantic cod)
 * I chose this article to evaluate because it is a well documented natural resource in which Canadians have long depended on for both subsistence and financial fishery activity, up until the early 1990s that is.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The Lead's introductory sentence is concise in defining the topic's basic biology and connection to humans, but could been improved with a little more detail on the significance to global fisheries. The Lead does include several paragraphs that roughly outline a more in depth look into the majority of the article compared to that of the introductory sentence. The several paragraphs that make up the Lead could have benefited from improved bridge sentences between the topics, as it came across rather choppy at times. The Lead does include information regarding the physiology of Atlantic cod that is not again discussed in the article, and might have been better described in a more general manner in the Lead and described further in the body of the article. I believe the Lead portrays valuable information but goes into too much depth regarding the fish physiology for an introduction section, including exact values of weight and length was unnecessary at this point in the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The article's claim that the species is listed as 'vulnerable' by the IUCN is partially correct, and does not acknowledged that different populations of the species are listed differently; current populations are listed 'vulnerable' and 'least concern'. Within the Predation section there are claims made without proper citation, for example "Juvenile cod make substrate decisions based on risk of predation". The discussion of the removal of Atlantic cod as a predator to crustaceans and other Atlantic species has been shown in the increase of these prey species is a loose interpretation because of the increased anthropocentric fishing pressure due to fishermen switching their target species from Atlantic cod to other species. The repetition of the claim that Atlantic cod participate in cannibalism in the Food and Diet section when it was previously stated in the Predation section is unnecessary, or should not be mentioned in the Predation section at all. The topics explored in the Content section is sound and relevant to the topic, but the Human Consumption section is clearly inadequate.

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
There seems to be a slight lean towards a conservation view of the Atlantic cod stocks, as the IUCN classification is misleadingly only partially true; in which the 'least concern' assessment is conveniently left out of the article. Other than that the article stays relatively true to the facts.

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
With minimal references to the past decade, the sources of this article are mediocre and would benefit from an updating of the scientific literature. This also speaks to the sources not thoroughly representing the available literature. Of the checked links, the sources seem to be legitimate. With a review of the recent literature this article could be much more robust.

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
The article is generally well-written with some sentences that could have been elaborated more. It is well-organized, outlining the biology of the fish before describing the ecological and human interactions and activities it is involved in.

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
For the most part the images do enhance the writing, providing visuals to the written information. Some of the images are lazily captioned and without citations in some cases, thus I do not believe all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. All but the images included in the Lifecycle section are laid out in a visually 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
There are not really any 'conversations' on-going in the talk page, instead two posts about adding information and citations. It is a part of three WikiProjects, and rated a B class.

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
The article could be significantly improved with more up to date information especially regarding the current fisheries conditions and restrictions. The article's overall status would be a B+, for valuable information and moderate level visual appeal. The article could be further developed with information of more recent stock assessments and implications for fisheries.

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: