User:Zoo8796/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Animal Diversity Web

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I have used the website, the article is about, for past projects and I was curious to see what Wikipedia users had to say about it. I also looked at the article and it looked imperfect (in writing, length, and number of references).

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

·       The lead section of this article gives a broad overview of the topic in the first paragraph.

·       The lead section does a good job introducing the main topics of the article.

·       The lead section does not discuss topics not included in the article.

·       The lead section is slightly over complicated and could easily be simplified.

Content

·       All the content in the article is relevant to the topic.

·       Content is up to date.

·       The staff section could be expanded to include former members, ADW Resources section is slightly heavy and written in an essay style.

·       The article does not specifically deal with one of the equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

·       Article seems pro ADW due to ADW Resources section being written similarly to an essay as opposed to an unbiased article.

·       This is not a topic that should have viewpoints.

·       Article does not attempt to persuade.

·       “All species accounts have been reviewed and approved several times over, providing the most accurate data” this quote has a slight bias to it.

Sources and References

·       ADW resources need more sources to back up claims.

o “Scholarly journals often draw from the ADW database when they are looking at a broad range of species in their study” needs a source.

o  The last two paragraphs of the section need at least one reference each.

·       Sources are relevant.

·       Sources are current (all within the last 20 years)

·       Sources are diverse and are written by people from marginalized groups.

·       Links work.

Organization and Writing Quality

·       The articles writing quality could use some work.

o  ADW is written like a school essay but needs to resemble unbiased fact.

o  The lead section could be simplified.

·       There were no grammatical or spelling errors that I could find.

·       Article is well organized.

Images and Media

·       No images

Talk Page Discussion

·       No current discussions on the talk page. Discussions from 2017 include an article evaluation and someone stating updates that they were going to make (and did)

·       This article is rated as “C-class” and is part of Molecular Biology, Biology, Animals, and Environment Wiki Projects.

·       The way we talk in class adds personal value to subjects. A Wikipedia article is supposed to be unbiased, pure fact.

Overall Impressions

·       Articles strengths are the background and partnerships sections.

·       The overview and ADW resources sections can be improved.

o  Overview needs simplification.

o  ADW Resources needs the writing style to be changed and needs more references.

I would assess this article as under-developed