User:Gil6362/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: Velociraptor
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. : I wasn't sure what other topic would seem as cool and interesting to read up on except a velociraptor, especially since I just learned today in a class that they had feathers that developed before being used for flight.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? :Yes.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? :It gave a brief overall description of the velociraptor, but didn't specifically state what was going to be discussed in major sections. It does however state so in the contents.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? :No it does not.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? :The lead is concise.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? :Yes.
Is the content up-to-date? :Yes.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? :No.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? :It only addresses the history, taxonomy, and some behaviors and functions of the velociraptor.

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? :No.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? :No because there is no position to favor.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? :Yes.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? :Yes.
Are the sources current? :Yes there are some from the 1990s, one dating back to 1974, and the most recent being 2019.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? :Yes the sources have a diverse spectrum of authors. I'm not sure what this last question is saying.
Check a few links. Do they work? :Yes.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? :Yes, not much jargon that would make it difficult for the reader to understand.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? :None that I had seen.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? :Yes.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? :Yes.
Are images well-captioned? :Yes, all have a caption attached below to each image. Except the phylogenetic tree doesn't have a caption written underneath, but rather incorporated into a statement above it.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? :All images have a wikilink that sends me to the source, except the phylogeny tree.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? :Yes.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? :Just how to say some statements more concisely and if the Jurassic Park dinosaur was based off of the velociraptor or the Deinonychus.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? :Yes its part of a dinosaur collaboration.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? :We haven't spoken on this topic.

What is the article's overall status? :It is a featured article in Wikipedia.
What are the article's strengths? :Neutrality, accuracy, completeness, and style.
How can the article be improved? :I don't have any suggestions to improve it.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? :It is well-developed.

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 — ~~~~