User:Wrightaa1/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: (link) Mitra mitra
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I searched invertebrates, then followed links until I found an article that had a brief page rather than a fully flushed out page. I couldn't seem to find one using the C articles link in the training or by using the wikiprojects page.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead sentence has the scientific and the common name as well as listing the family it belongs to.  It mentions that it is a large predatory sea snail.  Large is a fairly ambiguous term that requires context.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does not have a sentence describing the article's major sections but it does have a table of contents that links to each section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It doesn't really define what a marine mollusk is and it only briefly addresses the family it belongs to.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise, but perhaps to concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes the content is a very brief description of what a Mitra mitra is. It has a sentence describing where it is found in the world. Has 1 sentence on its preferred habitat, and feeding. The section on feeding does not have a supporting citations but it does link the two prey species to their articles. The shell description is the most filled out sections with detailed description.  There is also a section on the scientific classification which appears correct.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The articles used are from 2010 and 1998. The page was last edited on July 5 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It seems like there would be more information regarding habitat, and feeding. Perhaps how or why it is sconsidered an active predator.  It also seems like there should be more information about species development or family.  Life span and life cycle could also be discussed. How does it reproduce?  What are its predators? Ultimately what is written seems fine, but it is very brief and needs to be more flushed out.  It only has 2 sources so further research and source material may help flush out this article.

==== Content evaluation It is a very brief overview of the species. What is there appears to be correctly cited and fairly current. However, it is very brief and needs to be flushed out. This appears to be only the beginings of an article vs a fully flushed out page. ====

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes the article is neutral in its presentation.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, fairly factual and brief overview of the species.
 * 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? The section on feeding is not supported by a source. The shell description has one source on the first sentence, but none of the other facts presented in that section are supported by a citation. So while it may be true the reader does not know where that information came from.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There are more articles about the Mitra mitra but not a lot of them.  Would probably need to do a search on the family and find books that reference the species while talking about the family Mitridae.  When you go to the link from 2010 there are four sources used that could have been referenced.
 * Are the sources current? Fairly current 2010, and 1998.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? the links appear to work.

==== Sources and references evaluation There are only two sources utilized, and only briefly. There are more sources available for more detained description of invertebrate species. The sources appear to be utilized correctly if briefly. ====

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? What is written is concise, clear, and easy to read. However, it is very brief and missing some important information like life cycle, mating habits, ect.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? It does not appear to have grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is broken down into sections that make sense, however it is to brief and missing sections that would be important for the species.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is one picture of what the shell of the mitra mitra looks like.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? It appears to be a public domain photo that was uploaded on June 24, 2009 by Haplochromis and licesing grants anyone use for any purpose.
 * 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? No conversations appear to be going on for this page. The talk page was last edited on December 12, 2010.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It has been rated as a Start-Class of low importance and is part of WikiProject Gastropods.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It doesnt, I would have rated this as a good brief start of an article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It is a low importance, started page for a species in the WikiProject Gastropods.  It needs work to be improved on.
 * What are the article's strengths? Concise with some citations.  This article had sections that are relevant to the species.
 * How can the article be improved? It needs more detail, a few more sections, and more source material.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is a start to a solid article, but underdeveloped. What is there appears fairly good, just incomplete.

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:Mitra mitra