User:Sophiaschoen/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.


 * Evolutionary Biology: (link)
 * We have been learning about natural selection and evolution in our Biology Lab.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes it clearly states what Evolutionary Biology is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes and no. The sections are more listed as "Subfields" or "History" and has instead links to other articles that describe what it mentions.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, there are links to articles of what it includes, but specific information on those things is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Yes, it is concise and doesn't feel overly detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, but it doesn't go into much detail.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * It looks like the last edit was made September 3rd, so I would assume the information is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There isn't content that doesn't belong, but there's not a lot of detail in the article, so there might be information missing
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, but it's an article about organisms as a whole rather than specific groups.

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?
 * No it stays neutral

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Many of the sources are from the early 2000's, the most recent one looks to be from 2017, so I would say some are definitely more current than others, and could use some updating.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * They do.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is clear and feels very professional.
 * 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?
 * It is broken down into sections, but I don't necessarily think the sections are major points of the topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * It includes one image, and I would say that it's not enough.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The one image is on the side, so that's fine I suppose.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * They're trying to create a comprehensive guide to biology.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is part of a wikiproject for evolutionary biology. It's rated as top-importance, but doesn't seem to be worked on that much.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Obviously it goes into a lot less detail. Also it more so just mentions natural selection, rather than discussing it.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It's a C-class article, so I would say it could/should be improved.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The lead and intro are good because it discusses briefly what the topic is. The rest is just ok information.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Adding more information on what evolutionary biology is and how it can be seen in nature rather than going into detail about drug affects and what current research topics are––that seems less important to know.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say it's undeveloped. Needs work.

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: