User:Wschmidt6/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: (Andean flamingo)
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. The article is listed as c-class with potential for improvement. The article couples together many different disciplines such as conservation, ecology, and geography.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The introductory sentence makes a statement without a source, and only vaguely identifies the subject.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the Lead gives some information on biological classifications and behavior of the flamingos but does not summarize the other sections of the article (conservation, distribution, etc).
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is is more incomplete than it is concise.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is specific and relevant to the topic.
Is the content up-to-date? No, the most recent content is over 10 years old, from 2007.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content is mostly relevant and more or less complete, besides more recent updates.

Is the article neutral? Yes, the tone of the article is very neutral and balanced.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Naturally, the conservation section takes a conservationist position, but it is not overly biased or argumentative one way or another.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? A look at the Andean flamingo from a cultural or indigenous viewpoint is not present in the article.
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? Most facts have a corresponding source.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Many of the sources seem to be in print publications that are not available to the reader through a link.
Are the sources current? The sources are contemporary, but do not show any recent relevant updates.
Check a few links. Do they work? There is only one link, it does work. The rest of the sources appear to be in print.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the article is well-written and flows decently.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I could find.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the organization is clear, albeit lacking.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, there are a few nice images. It would be nice to have images that show how mining activities disrupt habitats, or possibly of the baby flamingos and eggs.
Are images well-captioned? Yes.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, but I wish there were more.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Mostly people proposing edits and updates and requesting feedback and edits.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated C-class. It is a part of WikiProject Birds, as well as WikiProjects for Chile, Argentina, and Peru.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? N/A.

What is the article's overall status?
What are the article's strengths? The article offers good, relevant information about the topic in an easy to read and organized way.
How can the article be improved? The article is limited in the content it covers and especially regarding recent updates.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is underdeveloped, there is some great information and a lot of potential for improvement with more sources and updates.

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 — ~~~~