User:Strikingfalcon/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.


 * Oyster farming
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because it is not extensively long and it is related to my aquaculture course.

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 first sentence of the lead does describe the topic well and concisely, and it does not contain any information that is not present in the article. However, it also does not mention several of the important topics of the article, including environmental impact and predators, diseases, and pets.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The article's content did seem to be relevant, as all details related to oyster farming in some way. The content was also up to date as far as I could tell, but there did seem to be several important details that were missing, including where oysters are cultured, and some details on the history of oyster farming.

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
The overall tone of the article was neutral and seemed to be overall unbiased and not persuasive. However, there were a few sections that were not as rounded as they could have been. For instance, a section of the article detailing a legal motion being passed in Delaware only talked about the points that supported the motion and none of the points against the motion.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The links to most of the sources seem to work, although I found two links that did not work. Most of the sources appear to be from scientific resources of government organizations, so they appear to be mostly reliable. I did find one source from a newspaper and another from a conservation website that could potentially contain bias, and many of the sources were also from 2008 or before. The age and bias of the sources and the nonworking sources do indicate that the sources need updating and maybe an overhaul.

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 separated into clear sections that make sense in the context of the subject, and there do not seem to be any grammatical or spelling errors. However, there were some places where the phrasing and grammar was not erroneous but was also not as clear as it could be.

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
The article uses a sufficient number of images and captions them well. However, some of the images are placed in a row that divides the text halfway through the article, which interrupts the flow of reading and seems out of place.

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
Conversations on this page mainly revolve around external links and changing them, along with a small note of a topic that needed to be included, although the last conversation ended in 2008. The article is part of three different WikiProjects and seems to be rated either as a c-class or a start class article depending on whether you view it as a bivalve article, a fishing article, or a food and drink article. Wikipedia seems to discuss this topic from a broader variety of angles than we would discuss it in 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
This article is decent and conveys some good information, but it could use some substantial revisions. The best aspects of the article are that it is fairly concise and does not go off topic. The sources of the article need to be checked for bias, older sources need to be checked for accuracy, and broken sources need to be replaced. Alternative viewpoints on some issues and details on some topics need to be included, and the grammar needs to be revised to increase the clarity. Overall, I think the article is underdeveloped and needs substantial revision.

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: