User:$cience-i$Fun/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
Sources and ReferencesA Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit](Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I chose this article because it relates to my class. It covers what zoology is and different areas of zoology, and gives me a better understanding of what zoology is and just how expansive it is. My first thought was "wow, that's a lot of words used to describe biology." The many words and details, however, add to the meaning of the article and provides even more information for readers.
Evaluate the article
[edit](Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
The lead section is very descriptive and does give a brief overview of what the rest of the article is about. It does provide a lot of smaller details about people, but it is alright since people are only briefly mentioned. It also gives readers examples of important zoologists in history.
The content is also relevant as all details add to the idea of what zoology is.
The author is neutral and doesn't favor sides, providing only information about zoology.
Additionally, the author's sources are from educated sources and are cited throughout the article. But some of the sources are not current, one being published in 1953.
The article is well organized into smaller sections, like the history and the types of zoologists. The spelling and grammar seems to be accurate as well.
The article uses a few images that are relevant to the text. These images are either public domain or have a CC BY license, meaning the source has to give a link to the source and credit to the author. I don't see credit to the author given in the text, but the article does provide links to the image sources.
This article was an assignment for a biology lab class. The last replies on the talk page indicate that students were organizing the page and adding images and smaller details.
This article is very well organized and provides a lot of strong information to explain what zoology is.Information is also relevant on unbiased, making it trustworthy in that regard. To improve, the article should have recent sources rather than having one in 1953. It would also be helpful to cite the sources the images came from. Even though the pictures do link to their sources, it would be easier to see the citations in the text.