User:Vecchiam/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: Western hognose snake
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because I recently got one of these snakes as a pet. I have done a decent amount of research on the snake but I still want to learn more about them to make sure I am giving her the best care possible. I also just think learning about animals is interesting in general.

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 lead is only one sentence, and gives a very brief description, that the western hognose is a snake and is native to america. Since the lead is only one sentence, it doesn't give much detail about the rest of the article or its major sections. The lead does not include information that is not present in the rest of the article, all of the information in the lead can be found elsewhere in the paper. I think this lead is a little too concise. Most people will probably only read the lead to get a good idea of what the snake is and having a little more information about the snake might pull them in.

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 content is very relevant to the topic. There were no real diversions from the western hognose, except when relating it to its close relatives such as the eastern hognose. The information does seem up to date, the article was actually updated today. Although a lot of the sources aren't that recent, there is not a lot of "cutting edge" science to be done on these snakes. They have a relatively stable population and aren't threatened and a decent amount of information is known because these snakes do really good in captivity. I think there could be more added to this article including care of the species as a pet (food, lighting, water, humidity, temperature, etc.). This article does not deal with an equity gap.

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
This article is neutral, there are no opinions inserted in this article, only facts and statements. There are no portions that seem opinionated, there are no mentions of "I think" or "some people say". Since this is a relatively scientific description, there is no real viewpoint to the article. This may be why they steered clear of including care information for captive hognose snakes because there is a lot of different ways to care for them and this could become opinionated. There is no persuasion or opinions to be represented.

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
All of the articles do seem relevant, wither referencing the hognose specifically or its close relatives. Some of the sources are older, however as I mentioned above, the information is not something that needs to be constantly updated. These sources do come from a variety of authors, although a good chunk of the sources are other websites, not peer reviewed articles. The links do work for these sources.

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
This article is well written. It doesn't include difficult terminology so it's easy to read and understand and it is very well organized. I did not notice any spelling errors or grammatical errors in this article. This article is broken down into sections which makes it very easy to navigate and understand. There is also a small table of contents at the top of the page that you can click on the sections and it takes you to the section that you want to read.

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
There are images on the page and they are very nice. It helps you to better understand both the coloration and overall look of the snake as well as highlighting their "shovel" nose to help people to visualize what the article means. These images could be much better captioned. The first image just has the caption "western hognose snake" and although this is what is shown in the image, it could be much more descriptive such as "adult normal/wild-type hognose snake" which although is still short and simple, gives the reader a much better idea of what is shown. The second image doesn't have any caption at all, but could say something like "close up of western hognose face showing the modified rostral scale used for digging/burrowing". I think that these could have also been laid out better. The first image is good to have at the top of the page, however I think the second image would be better places near the description section rather than the reproduction section because this image has nothing to do with reproduction. In addition to this, I would think the addition of a few other images would be beneficial including one of male vs female sizes (since they are substantially different) as well as some pictures of the different morphs that are available.

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
There is not much talk about this page. Although there are a few conversations on if the snake is venomous or not (it contains irritants in its saliva that could be considered venom but is not harmful to humans). This article was rated B-class, requiring some additional work but is not in bad shape. This is part of the Wikiproject Amphibians and Reptiles. This article is not related to in-class topics.

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
I would say that overall, this is a good article. There are a few things that I would personally change about the article including the addition and reorganization of pictures, more information about the captive care of the snakes and make the lead a little longer. There are some definite strengths. The article itself is really nicely laid out, there are a few tables to compare species, there are a good amount of references, further reading and links to interact with and from what I know, the information seems correct. I would say that the article is underdeveloped. It is a good starting point but there is a lot more information out there about these snakes that could be very useful.

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: