User:Vkdm.nres/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.


 * Toxic Bird: (Toxic bird)
 * I chose this article because toxins that are more 'naturally' present, versus those created by humans, are more interesting to me. I am also incredibly fond of birds.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead's introductory sentence is concise and the topic can be clearly understood from the first paragraph. Since this article is a stub, there is no major sections present. In reference to the information it does contain, the article is well-written and briefly describes what is entailed with links to other Wiki articles, choosing not to go in detail. The lead is also concise and does not require further editing.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The content is relevant to the topic and the most recent paper cited was published in 2010. I believe that major parts of content is missing, especially since there is no detail published besides what is written in the lead. Since this topic focuses on bird species that have evolutionarily found the use of toxins, there is no equity gap present nor does it focus on socially underrepresented topics.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral, though it seems to rely too much on other wiki articles published. For example, there is more information about birds sequestering batrachotoxin on the chemical's main page than there is present on this page. The viewpoints are heavily underrepresented and subsections for each bird found to use toxins should be included in areas besides the lead. The article makes no attempts to persuade the reader and presents its information as plain facts.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The facts present have appropriate citations that properly back up said information, but they are not reliable. Only two citations are present and I think there should definitely be more present. The sources are from 2008 and 2010; these are somewhat recent, though I'm sure more must be present, both recent and from the past. Both sources are from the same author and are not diverse enough, there is no way that he is the only scientist that has studies toxic elements in birds. The links work, though they route to blog entries, which are not reliable even if the author has sources to primary literature.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is easy to read, considering it is only two paragraphs long. No grammar errors are present. This article could benefit from expansion; for example, a handful of toxic birds are lumped into the second paragraph when instead, they could each have their own section dedicated to either their species type, type of compounds, or how they acquire the toxins.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There is only one image. The caption present on this article's sole image is useful and provides a visual of one bird that uses neurotoxins. The image is licensed under Creative Commons and is allowed to be used on Wikipedia.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There are no conversations present besides a hidden section regarding quails and coturnism. This article is part of WikiProject birds and is rates as a low-importance and stub-class. There is also a request for more images to be added. The talk page seems to contain less discussion than class and more like notes left by those who have written the article, signaling what edits have been made and what else is needed to make it better. Class is more of a back-and-forth style of learning, while the Wiki talk section has the air of people doing independent projects and only coming together to make sure the article is presentable.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article's overall status is stub-class. The information that is contained in the lead provides a good start for those who want to add more sections and research more specifics concerning toxins in birds. This article requires more detail overall and could use more sources. I would say this article is incredibly underdeveloped.


 * 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?

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: