User:Cedwards96/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: Aquatic-terrestrial subsidies
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- I have a background in aquatic and semiaquatic ecology, including birds (shorebirds), fish, and macroinvertebrates.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes: Energy and nutrients derived from aquatic ecosystems and transferred to terrestrial ecosystems are termed aquatic-terrestrial subsidies or, more simply, aquatic subsidies.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes, the different types of subsidies
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- Concise

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes
Is the content up-to-date?
- Mostly
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Yes - missing ecotox section, some sections are broken down in a weird way: example, there is a section for terrestrial subsidies, aquatic subsidies, the importance of aquatic subsidies, but not for the importance of terrestrial subsidies
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- No - not relevant

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?
- Bigger focus on aquatic rather than terrestrial subsidies, which can be improved
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes, each fact has a citation
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, but many more could be added
Are the sources current?
- Yes
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Yes, maybe not relevant
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- It is quite concise (maybe too much so). Very easy to read.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Not that I found
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Somewhat - the breakdown is a little weird and there are content gaps. Existing sections should be condensed and new sections added

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- None - just a student reporting that they edited the page
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- Rated a stub, part of many environmental/ecology wikiprojects
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- The talk page is nearly empty

What is the article's overall status?
- Stub
What are the article's strengths?
- Nutrient flow is well discussed
How can the article be improved?
- Addition of ecotox, reformatting some sections
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- Underdeveloped, but the existing content is good and well-sourced

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 — ~~~~