User:Erica-Schroeder/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article
[edit]This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: Greyhound
- First time evaluating an article on Wikipedia. Using this article to practice.
Lead
[edit]- Lead evaluation
The first couple of sentences in the Lead of this article concisely describe what a greyhound is (a type of dog breed). The Lead includes a brief description of the appearance and abilities of the breed which are further detailed in two of the article's major sections. There is some information that is included in the article's major sections that is not present in the Lead, but the "contents" section below the Lead show all that is included in the article.
Content
[edit]- Content evaluation
The article was last updated on January 3, 2020. For the most part, the content seems to be relatively up to date. The majority of sources used were published after 2010, but there are some exceptions of sources published before then. The content of the article is relevant to the topic, but the content within the "Pets" section and the "Companion" section of the article overlap and could be combined into one section. Also, the content in "History" section seems unfinished and the final sentence is irrelevant to the content preceding it.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- Tone and balance evaluation
There is a more positive view than negative view of greyhounds presented in the article and in several instances, popular myths and misconceptions about greyhounds are debunked which served as evidence to support a positive view. Regardless of this, the information seems to be presented in a relatively neutral manner.
Sources and References
[edit]- Sources and references evaluation
As mentioned above (in the content evaluation), the sources are current for the most part, many of which were published after 2010. Most of the links work, but not all. Likewise, most of the sources are reliable secondary sources, but not all are secondary sources so even though most claims within the article are cited, they are not all reliable.
Organization
[edit]- Organization evaluation
The article is well-written grammatically and doesn't contain spelling errors. However, the organization of the article could be improved. As mentioned above (in the content evaluation), the "Pets" and "Companion" sections could be combined due to similarities and overlap of the information presented in each section. Also, the "History" section could be improved in several ways. It could be further developed in it's content and the section as a whole may be better placed as the first section following the Lead instead of as the final section of the article, where it currently is placed.
Images and Media
[edit]- Images and media evaluation
The article includes eleven images, all of which seem to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Not all of the images enhance the understanding of the topic so the image count could be cut down. There are images that too closely resemble one another for them all to be included, images without captions, images that don't correspond to any information presented in the article, and of the images correspond with information presented in the article, these images are not ordered in a way to match the corresponding information.
Checking the talk page
[edit]- Talk page evaluation
The "Disputed Comments" section in the talk page is where most conversations are occurring. There is much discussion over what is considered opinion and what is considered fact and how the line between the two is blurred in several places in the article. This article is part of the "WikiProject Dogs" and has been rated as B-Class (on quality scale) and of High Importance (on importance scale).
Overall impressions
[edit]- Overall evaluation
The article is on the verge of being well-developed. The tone of the article is academic and the information is presented in a neutral way (for the most part). The content is relevant and no major content seems to be missing. However, the article could be further developed by polishing content, cutting down image count, and organizing the sections in a more effective way.