User:Trj150/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.


 * Name of article: Atlantic cod
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose to evaluate this article because it is a topic I am interested in learning about, I know a small amount of information about cod, and it was within the lists of articles that were to be chosen from.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No, it only states the name (scientific and common) and how humans chose to consume it. After reading the article, it states information about their habitat, environment, predation, reproduction, and other important details.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, instead it is more of a descriptive portion that explains things like the size, color, and region they live in.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, I see a majority of the information from the Lead within the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? In my opinion, it is a little over detailed and doesn't really summarize the article well.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The article's content is relevant to the topic because the topic is over "Atlantic Cod", and the information within the article is only about Atlantic Cod.
 * Is the content up-to-date? I believe that the content is up-to-date because it was last updated on July 7, 2020 and has information from at least 2014.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't necessarily think there is content missing, but the Lead definitely has content that doesn't belong. It needs to be more of a clear beginning and only include the main points of the article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? The article is neutral. It only includes the fact of Atlantic Cod.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there are no claims that make this article biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think the only viewpoint that was maybe underrepresented are the fisheries, but it is also about Atlantic Cod, so I feel like the brief discussion on it was fine.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the article doesn't attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I appears that all facts are backed up by a list of reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I think that all the sources seen thorough and contain sufficient information on the topic.
 * Are the sources current? The sources vary from very recent to later years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? I checked a few of the links provided, and some worked and some brought be to pages that stated they were no longer available.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I think that the article is very well-written. It is super easy to follow and provides good information.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I believe there were a few grammatical errors, but for the most part it was good!
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I feel as though the sections are fairly good, some need more information, but the Lead doesn't necessarily reflect those topics.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article contains a great deal of pictures, videos, and graphs that explain statistics, colors, length and size, etc.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, all the images have great captions.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe so! All are cited or are given permission from the photographer.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? I would definitely say the images 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? The most common talk is that different external links have been modified.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated B-class and mid/high importance for different categories of WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I guess we haven't necessarily talked about this topic in class, but in relation to class material, this doesn't connect with Atlantic Cod and it's environment as much as we do when we discuss microbes and the environment.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Overall, I would say the article's status is a good article, but it didn't meet the good article criteria in 2013.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article's strengths are the information, resources, and images.
 * How can the article be improved? The article could be improved by re-arranging the format/structure of how the authors have laid out the information to the viewers. Also, revise the sources that aren't working anymore.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think the article is well-developed with the slight problem of some of the sources being "incomplete" because they aren't available anymore.

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: