User:Trinityherndon/Evaluate an Article

Article evaluation feedback
These are great reasons to select an article to evaluate! Your evaluation throughout these components is thoughtful and I see you asking good questions such as the one about a possibly outdated source that might affect the currency of information in the article. This is a solid thought-process to have gone through for this article as you start looking at and thinking about possible stub or start class articles to improve. Very nice work! Nicoleccc (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Evaluate an article

 * Four-eyed turtle: Four-eyed turtle
 * I chose to evaluate this article because it seems like a decently sized C-class article and the WikiProject that it falls under interests me.

Lead
The introductory sentence of the Lead accurately describes the topic, but could include more detail of the overview of the turtle. The Lead of this article does not provide a description for any of it's sections which include geographic range, hybridization, description, equality, and status and conservation. All information mentioned in the Lead is also present throughout the article. The Lead is very concise, only containing two sentences which relate to the topic, but do not give an overview of the rest of the article.

Content
All of the content on the article is relevant and most is up to date. The one claim about Taiwan's turtle bone imports from 1992 to 1998 seems kind of outdated though, there is probably more recent information about their current imports of turtle bones. I don't notice anything super important or big content that is missing, just generally more information should be added to increase the quality of this article as well as some information about their behavior.

Tone and Balance
There is a heavy emphasis, and more information, on the "status and conservation" section of this article. This leaves the article looking/feeling unbalanced due to the minimal information in other sections. That being said, the article seems neutral and not heavily biased. Although they have a lot of information about conservation, they don't seem to be pushing for a certain viewpoint.

Sources and References
Most facts on this article have a reliable source cited to back them up, but some don't. There are two already marked places in this article where verification is needed. The sources cited in this article are mostly thorough and represent a nice variety of the available information on this species. The sources are also mostly current, 2000 and more recently. The one that I still have questions on, as mentioned above in the content section, is the fact about Taiwan's imports of turtle bones from 1992-1998, which seems slightly outdated. The links to references work.

Organization
Overall, the article is well-written and easy to read with no major spelling or grammatical errors noticeable to me. The article is broken down into five main sections that are well organized in a order that flows and makes sense except for one section. I think the "description" section should be first to give the reader general information on the specie before other, more detailed, information is shared.

Images and Media
There is only one image on this page. More images could be used to help enhance this article. The one image is captioned once you click on it and adheres to Wikipedia's copyright violations. the one image is laid out in a side column of the article which is visually appealing and keeps the article well organized.

Checking the talk page
This article is apart of the WikiProject Turtles and is rated as a C-class. There's not much conversation going on in the talk page, the WikiProject turtles requested that more photos be added, someone modified an external link, and someone else suggested a description of how the turtles interact with each other be added to the article and provided a link to the source that contains this information.

Overall impressions
Overall, this article has a solid base but still needs to be built upon to increase its quality. The biggest strength of this article is it's overall organization and layout. That is super easy to follow and generally really organized and neat. This article can be improved by more extensive research being added to sections other than "status and conservation", and by having the sources verified so we can know this information is reliable. I would say this article is underdeveloped since it still feels incomplete.