User:Gpappy/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: Assortative mating
I am majoring in Evolutionary Biology. The concepts of evolution are well known to me, so I can critically evaluate the quality of the article. This article is also C-class, meaning that it is of mid to low importance and does not receive as much critical attention as other articles.

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?
- No. There are topics of the social and human applications of assortative mating that are not mentioned in the Lead.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No. There is mention of the Hardy-Weinberg principle that is not present in the article, but everything else is touched upon.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- It is concise.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes, for the most part. There is talk of the economic applications of the principle, which does not seem entirely relevant to an evolutionary topic in science. This section is also very brief. The section on the social interpretations of the topic in humans is also longer than the non-human section, which I don't believe is appropriate. The article feels human-centered.
Is the content up-to-date?
- Not entirely. There are a few citations using studies from the 1980s and 1990s. Additionally, in the "In Humans" section, there is reference to a study from 1903, which is extremely outdated.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- The economic applications of the topic seem to not belong. There is also a lot of mention of assortative mating in humans, though it also occurs commonly in animals.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- The article does talk about mating within different ethnic groups. It mentions inter-racial marriage. Additionally, there is mention of assortative mating in people with mental disorders, though this is not elaborated on.

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?
- The article is heavily anthropocentric, with little description of mating in animals. Otherwise, all viewpoints are neutral. Any potentially controversial statements have valid citations.
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?
- No. There are multiple statements throughout the article that are marked by [citation needed].
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- No. Sources focused either on sociological human studies, or mating studies of birds.
Are the sources current?
- For the most part, yes. There are 3 sources out of 23 that were from the 1990s and 1980s. There is also reference to a study in 1903.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Yes. The sources are written by a diverse spectrum, especially in the citations for genetic research. East asian authors can be seen, though a majority of authors seem to be male.
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 well-written. It is concise. The "In humans" section is a bit long in comparison to the non-human animals section.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- There are no apparent errors.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- There are 4 sections. The causes, in animals, and in humans sections reflect the major points. The economics section does not necessarily fit with the rest of the article, particularly because of its lack of length.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Yes, there are two images.
Are images well-captioned?
- No. There is simply a description of the animal, rather than a description of its connection to the topic.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Yes, both pictures are the own work of editors.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- No. They are clumped at the beginning of the article.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- There are a few conversations discussing whether the article had be "trolled" or randomly edited as a joke. There are talks of adjusting phrasing, as well as talk of merging the article with its counter-topic, disassortative mating.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- The article is rated C-class. It is part of the Biology, Ecology, and Evolutionary Biology Wikiprojects.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- The editors pay more attention to minute details. It also feels like a conversation. There were a few sections where editors were asking each other questions and asking for suggestions. The editors also use evidence when referring to things in the article. The tone is slightly more formal than when we would talk in class, though this varies.

What is the article's overall status?
- The article has not been updated for a few years. While most of the information is still current, it can be brought up to date even further and can be improved.
What are the article's strengths?
- The article's section on humans is well developed. It mentions multiple applications of the concept of assortative mating and builds upon each application.
How can the article be improved?
- The non-human and economic sections can be significantly be improved. More citations and examples can be placed in the non-human section. The economics section can either be removed or should be significantly more developed.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- I would say the article is underdeveloped. The article is unequally developed, with some section obviously being given more attention than others. Overall, more pictures, examples, and detail throughout the article could be added.

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 — ~~~~