User:Wiki limno/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: Endangered Species Act of 1969
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose to evaluate this article because the 1973 act is very important in the scope of biological diversity protection in the US and I thought it would be interesting to brush up on the details of an act preceding it.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead does a good job of giving an overview of what the article will be discussing. It is a little bit of a run-on sentence though.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Sort of, the lead has a contents table which links you to different areas within the article. But it does't include a description of these sections.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's very concise, it could actually use more information.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, but they could have done a better job including more details about the act itself. Also, in the lead it would have made sense to explain that the organization of the content was mainly laying out the acts that had been passed before it.
Is the content up-to-date? As much as it could have been, the post is about an act from 1969.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The photos of random animals doesn't really belong, species protected under the act would make more sense. I think more information about the act itself would be beneficial.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I don't believe so.

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? I think that it would be a better article if it delved into the passing of the act. It could have touched upon who pushed the act and who opposed it. Because the author didn't touch on either there is a lack of representation of both sides.
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? Yes, with the exception of a museum page.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are not the most thorough, there is definitely more information from reliable sources on the subject.
Are the sources current? Yes, especially considering that the article is about a topic from 1969 and most of the sources are from 2018.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources are relatively diverse but they do reference US Fish and Wildlife twice. I don't think they included any marginalized authors.
Check a few links. Do they work? Mostly, but one linked to a page that doesn't exist anymore.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is well written, but lacking in detail.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I found.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Not really, it could use a section on History which really could include most of the info on the page, and then a detailed section on the act itself.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, see note in content.
Are images well-captioned? One has no caption, the other two have vague captions.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? One does, the others are hard to tell because it doesn't have info on the copyright in the metadata when you click on the photo.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, they were in a few spots throughout the article which was appealing to the eyes as you read.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is some talk about editing the article.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as sub/low and is a part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject United States
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I suppose I took a VERY broad approach to picking an article because I found it by searching through the biology wikiproject so we didn't specifically touch on this act in class.

What is the article's overall status? The article is relatively weak and could use more work.
What are the article's strengths? It has strength in the history of the act and the fact that the article itself exists is good because it gives other authors something to work on.
How can the article be improved? The article could have more relevant photos. It could go into a section that described how this act impacted future acts. There could be a section on the people who were influential in writing the act.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say it is underdeveloped. It needs a lot of additional work, it could benefit from better organization overall and more 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 — ~~~~