User:Will Benedict/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: (Deep sea creature)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because it relates to Deep Sea Biology. Additionally, I wanted to read and learn more about deep sea creatures in general and their characteristics/the challenges they face.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Mostly, but does not include anything in the Lead about research on the topic or deep sea creatures in popular culture
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, in the Lead certain environments are specifically mentioned. These environments, the abyssal and hadal zones, are not further discussed in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? More information on the specific environments in which deep sea creatures live could be added

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No. There are many claims made in the article that do not have appropriate sources cited. In fact, it is stated that the article needs additional citations for verification.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No, not many sources are used.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, mostly. However, it would still be very helpful to have new reliable sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Only some of the links work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The sections included are appropriate, but the way they are organized could be better. For example, the lack of light section should be a subsection under the the lack of resources section. Additionally, there should be an adaptations sections that includes sub-sections such as deep-sea gigantism, bioluminescence, and chemosynthesis.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is a suggestion to combine this article with the Deep sea communities article. Some agree with this proposal and one person does not agree.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is not a good or featured article. It is stated that the article needs additional citations. It is not part of any WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It discusses similar topics we have learned about in class such as deep-sea gigantism.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? This article needs additional work and is not a very strong Wikipedia article at this moment.
 * What are the article's strengths? It is clear and concise.
 * How can the article be improved? It needs more sources overall, and more reliable sources so that there are no claims that are not cited. Additionally, the suggestion from the talk page to combine this article with the deep sea communities article would be helpful. That way more information, including information on the specific environments that are mentioned in the Lead but not followed up on later in the article, would be included.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? This article is both underdeveloped and 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: Talk:Deep sea creature