User:Ucblueashmorgan/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here. )Animal communication

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

The reason I chose this article was because I love animals and wanted to learn more about them.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section:


 * 1) Yes, the lead includes a good introductory sentence and well explains what animals communication means.
 * 2) Yes, the lead includes different topics and listing that are going to be explained in the article.
 * No, the lead includes topics related to the article.
 * 1) Yes, the lead has a good amount of information about what's going to be talked about in the article and it has a good amount of detail to start off with.

Content


 * 1) Yes, the article's content is relevant it has different subtitles of different information that is related to the article.
 * 2) Yes, this context is up to date.
 * No, this article doesn't have any context that doesn't belong.
 * No, this article doesn't have a gaps. No, the article doesn't present historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance


 * 1) Yes, the article is neutral.
 * No, this article doesn't have any claims for a particular reason.
 * 1) Yes some of the view point are over presented and there a some that needed added like Errors in communication.
 * 2) No the article doesn't try to persuade the reader.

Sources and Resources


 * 1) Some facts need updated sources or still need sources.
 * 2) Yes, the sources are about the article.
 * 3) Most of the sources are out dated.
 * 4) Yes, the sources are from a diversity of authors and marginalized.
 * 5) Yes, there are some sources that are good and not from news sources.
 * 6) Yes the links and sources work.

Organization and Writing quality


 * 1) Yes, the article is well-written just needs additional cautions for verification.
 * No, the article is grammatically correct.
 * 1) Yes, the article is well organized with the different topics and sections.

Images and Media


 * 1) Yes, the article has images that add a better understanding.
 * 2) Yes, all images have well captions.
 * 3) Yes, they adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations and you can see all them.
 * 4) Yes, all the images are well seen and organized with the text.

Talk page discussion


 * 1) Some conversation behind the screen talking about fixing human/animal section, fixing definitions, and adding things and saying there is to much of certain information.
 * 2) The article is rated as a B-class and is on the WikiProjects.
 * 3) Wikipedia is more in depth and has more information about the topic in class with picked a topic that we were interested in.

Overall impressions


 * 1) The articles overall status is there is a lot of good information and the setup is organized.
 * 2) The article strengths is the information.
 * 3) This article can me improved by adding reliable sources.
 * 4) I think the article is well developed just needs a few edits and updates.