User:ZachT99/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: (frilled shark)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose this article to evaluate because this is the species that a I'm doing for my research assignment.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yeah it goes on by stating there two living sharks in the genus. However the main focus of the article is on the frilled shark and not the South African frilled shark.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * yeah it sums up most of what the articles goes over, such as its morphology, distribution, diet and eating habits, reproduction, and interaction with humans. It does not really go into the history and discovery of the species but that might be due to the fact that this is included in the first topic after the introduction.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think it is concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * yes, content goes into great detail about certain aspects of the frilled shark.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * there is a mixture of old and fairly modern findings. The most recent reference used was from 2016.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * there no content that does not belong but, maybe they could go more in detail in the development of the frilled shark?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I don't think so

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * yes, there seems to be no bias. The article is only stating facts and findings about the frilled shark species.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * there seems to be information from many different researchers but not really viewpoints, just different findings that they have found.
 * 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?
 * some articles seem like they came from literature and peer reviewed journals. There was also information that came from a lot of webpages (website like underwatertimes.com)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * range from the 1880s to 2016. There are many sources from the 2000s and 2010s. so the sources are fairly current it would be nice to include sources from the last four years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * It has findings from researchers across the world, from the U.S to Japan.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * many work, except for reference 3. when you click the link the museum website says that there is a 404 error.

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?
 * I don't think so
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes, but I think there is potential for more sections/ sub-sections.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes the article includes some helpful images that enhance understanding of the shark species.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes they are concise but also detailed descriptions of the images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I think so
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * yes they are in ares that naturally flow with the content and a are not overly distracting.

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 were conversations about removing links, profanity, and the view of putting Japan in a bad light of overfishing.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * it is a part of the sharks wiki project and its quality is GA and its importance is mid level.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * more modern findings and information maybe from 2016+ could be added? also maybe topics about their development?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think the article is well-developed, it met the criteria for a good article (GA) in 2010.

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: