User:Scottgol/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.


 * Porites compressa: (Porites compressa)
 * The professor said we could do anything, so I chose the model species from my MS thesis.

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? No.  It does summarize two of the three major sections ("description" and "distribution and habitat")
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Very concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes.  The only old citations are for basic morphological descriptions and from the original species description.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Everything here belongs.  Personally, I would have wanted to see more discussion towards this coral's role as a home for other reef organisms.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? One could argue that when it lists threats to coral reefs, it attempts to push the reader in a pro-environmental protection direction, but I would disagree.  Even though it lays out anthropogenic threats, the article does not say that these threats are a problem for people, just the coral (which they are).

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No.  Source number 5 is neither from peer reviewed literature, nor a reliable source like WoRMS.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Again, I would have liked to see more about how this coral interacts with the rest of the reef, but for a discussion of this coral in a vacuum, it does a good job.
 * Are the sources current? No, but the older sources are used for general fact that are unlikely to be disproven (like how the coral is shaped).
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Link number 5 to the wayback machine works, but it does not have all the data the article says it does.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? It has only one, and it is not perfect.  It shows three different coral species, and while it is well captions so a reader knows which is which, from a quick glance you cannot know which coral is P. compressa unless you already did.  I think it is a good idea to have a picture like this to help the reader learn to differentiate between three corals that may appear together, but is should be supplementing a picture of the coral alone.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? No conversation
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is part of the "Animals" and "Marine Life" WikiProjects.  Both rate this article "low-importance"
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We did not discuss it in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Short, but to the point.
 * What are the article's strengths? It is accurate and could act as a start if someone wanted a quick reference to begin learning more about this coral.
 * How can the article be improved? A greater discussion of the ecology of this coral would be a notable addition.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It does a decent job of developing all of the ideas it puts forth.

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: