User:Kacieevans/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: Freshwater bivalve
• Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
  • I want to add to an article that has to do with an animal more so than river ecosystems or properties about streams.

Lead

Guiding questions

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, but I think that the flow of the introductory sentence could be better.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • No it doesn't.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Yes. It talks about their different habitats.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • It feels overly detailed with a lot of bouncing from topic to topic relatively quick.

Content

Guiding questions

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
  • Yeah the content is relevant.
• Is the content up-to-date?
  • I believe so.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • No, but a lot of the topics can be elaborated on.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • No not really.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions

• Is the article neutral?
  • Yes the article has a neutral tone.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Viewpoints no, but topics in general need to be expanded.
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No.

Sources and References

Guiding questions

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • No
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Not really. One reference is a fact sheet, which is nice, but its just a bunch of topics squished together nothing really in depth in depth.
• Are the sources current?
  • No.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Not at all. The authors are all old white males.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes they work.

Organization

Guiding questions

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • For the most part yeah, but some of the sentences are worded weird.
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • Not spelling errors that I noticed, but there are some weird commas.
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • The article is split into a general section and a taxonomy section but thats all.

Images and Media

Guiding questions

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • It includes some photos, but they could be better for sure.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • The captions could use rewording, but overall they are fine.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yeah, I think that there needs to be one more in each row though, having 4 photos looks better visually than three.

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
  • I think that good photos tell a lot about an article/topic. Its a lot easier to learn and understand a topic with the correct photos. Also having women and other under represented individuals may have a different touch to add to article thoroughness.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions

• What is the article's overall status?
  • infancy.
• What are the article's strengths?
  • The article has photos, and has a basic outline of what a bivalve is, and a basic outline of its taxonomy.
• How can the article be improved?
  • The article needs to have some more photos, and it needs to talk about its habitats, mating style, food consumption, etc. A lot of the topics already listed needs to be expanded on.
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
  • The article is extremely under developed.

Optional activity

• 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 — ~~~~

• Link to feedback: