User:Wildlife Nerd8694/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Gray treefrog

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because the Gray Treefrog (Hyla versicolor) is a species that we commonly see across New England and I thought it would be best to work on an article of a species that I have familiarity with. It matters because of how common the species is, if the information being spread about a frog that is known to be abundant and well-known is incorrect then what should we make of the information being spread around about more rare species. My preliminary impression of the article is that the wording and setup of information was slightly awkward, it felt as if the writers mashed information into areas that did use it but did not necessarily need it.

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:
The starting sentence gives a precise view and short description about the species that the article is talking about. The lead section however, does not include a brief description of the upcoming sections in the article about the species, it rather cuts the section short by only discussing the name of the frog, related species, and the range. The lead might be considered a bit too concise considering that it doesn't include a lineup of the sections, while the description of the species might be overly detailed in the fact that it discusses more than just a basic description and dives into the differences between it and related species.

Content:
The content of this article is up to date and strongly relevant to the species, that being said there are two sections that appear to be a bit short - the "Distribution and Habitat" and the "Behavior" sections. While both do provide strong fact based content they do fall short in their descriptions and almost appear as less important than larger sections like "Mating".

Tone and Balance:
The tone and balance of this article is as neutral as it gets with presenting all information purely on a fact based tone without any opinionated comments or directions. It does a great job of avoiding any directional work on convincing the general public of an opinion.

Sources and References:
The sources used for this article are well sourced and reliable, all coming from various peer-reviewed journal articles and other field guide-related pieces. There is only one problem with the sources and references section, and that is two areas where citations are needed. The first one is in the "Distribution and Habitat" section of the article, the last sentence discusses the breeding habits of the species but does not clearly cite a source. The second one is in the "Behavior" section and is the last sentence as well, it talks about how this species is less prone to overheating as well as a few other qualities but does not back up the claim with a source. While the information may possibly be accurate we cannot know for sure until it is cited by a reliable source, such as a peer-reviewed journal article, a well-established research guide, or such.

Organization and Writing Quality:
While the grammar, spelling, and writing of the article may be clear, the organization leaves something more to be desired. The sections that are currently within the article do a good job to understand various important parts of this species, but they tend to reach a bit outside of their areas of interest. For example, the description section talks a decent amount about the genetic makeup of the species and the differentiating qualities between it and other relative species, I personally think that the description section would look better if it focused exclusively on the species and built two smaller sub-sections under it for genetics, related species, and the species qualities/abilities. The second issue I have with the organization is between the sections of "behavior" and "mating", while they are back to back they immediately follow the end of behavior with another sub-section labeled behavior. It makes sense but maybe a smoother transition would be to consider mating as a whole a sub-section of the behavior section.

Images and Media:
The images and media used in this article do well to show the various characteristics of the species it discusses. By inserting the media at essential, well-spaced areas in the article it does well to show the specific characteristics that it previously had pointed out and makes the reader better understand the species that they are reading about. My only critique for this would be to include a recording of the species call, it is such a unique aspect/characteristic of the species that is even mentioned as the only defining difference between it and another closely related species that I think it would be imperative to include it in the article.

Talk Page Discussion:
The talk page of this article is decently short but is extremely informative of the type of community that is putting in the work to create the most fact-based article that they can. It is full of helpful tips and contributions with the aim of building the article up even more. Some people that have added to the talk page bring up really good points in various topics like genetics, diet, and even evolutionary terms. The article is part of a wikiproject titled "WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles", it is rated as a C-class article and also regarded as "Low Importance".

Overall Impressions:
I would say that the article's overall impression is that it is well-written, reliably sourced (for the majority), and a great read. It refreshes the readers with tons of knowledge that would typically take hours of reading various peer-reviewed journal articles to achieve, all while providing the reader with a basic understanding of the species that they are learning about. The strengths of this article would be its depths about each section and the talk page that shows how serious the contributors are about creating a purely fact-based piece on this species. The weaknesses would have to be the lack of citations on two (decently important) sentences within the article, and the organization of the sections. I think it would be vastly improved if sections were divided a bit further to make it easier for the reader to find specifically what they want to read about, for example; creating a new section for all of the genetic and evolutionary related knowledge on the species and its related species rather than just writing a few paragraphs under the description section. I would assess that the article is well-developed but could do with further contribution, while the information present does a great job of summing up what is needed to know about the species it could greatly benefit from hearing more about the species and better understanding what is currently occurring with it.