User:Rjburger89/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: Bald Knob National Wildlife Refuge
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I choose this article because its close to home, and interest me.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? For the most part. It could use more information about the actual wildlife refuge as opposed to just statistics.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? What sections there are yes. It mentions wildlife and describes it lower.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No it is all presented in the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very concise and straight to the point.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes its completely about the Bald Knob Wildlife Refuge
Is the content up-to-date? The content is mostly up-to-date. Using references from 2015
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is nothing that doesn't belong, but with that said it could use more information about the actual wildlife refuge.

Is the article neutral? The article is neutral, and is mostly presented using stats.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No its more of an informational article.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The focus on the wildlife is over represented for the size of the article. If it was followed with more information about terrain, plants, activities, and history it wouldn't feel that way.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? It does not, it is just a information article.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? They are backed by government websites as references mostly. If you consider government sources reputable then yes it is. I could not find a source for the history portion of the article explaining how it was created.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They are. They are in pdf format mostly and quite detailed.
Are the sources current? If 2015 is current then yes. If not then no.
Check a few links. Do they work? Some do, some dont.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Its very concise and easy to read.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that i saw
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Its broken down to one subject, so yes but no. Could use more information

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes there is a map, and pictures of ducks depicting the wildlife.
Are images well-captioned? Yes, they include information about why they are relevant.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? They seem to. One is from the arkansas wildlife regulation. The other is said to be "own work"
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? None just a question about alligators.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as a C, and is part of the wikiprojects Arkansas, and Protected Areas
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

What is the article's overall status? Its a low importance article that needs a little work. Rated C.
What are the article's strengths? It presents the information is has in a concise manner.
How can the article be improved? Provide just more general information about the place and its subjects.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The information presented is well developed, but underdeveloped in the amount of information.

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 — ~~~~