User:Datotter007/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A 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.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Is the content up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia 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.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A 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.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Talk page discussion

The 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.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
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

What is the article's overall status?
What are the article's strengths?
How can the article be improved?
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Examples of good feedback

A 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.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

International parrot trade

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

The reason I choose this article is because exotic pet trade has always been something that I have felt very strongly about. I feel that these beautiful species do not belong in the homes of humans, they are to be out roaming their natural habitats. If we keep up the exotic pet trade then the numbers of these animals involved will only keep decreasing. Eventually leading to use not being able to see them about. My preliminary impression was that they have a lot of references cited in their reference page, and there's sources cited throughout the entirety of the article. Something that could be improved is the dates could be updated. More research is being done all the time something I would look into is seeing if some new numbers came out on the topic.

Evaluate the article

(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 of the article does introduce the topic well, giving a good explanation of what the topic of the article is. The lead does not give a description of what is to come in the major sections. No extra information that is not in the article is given in the lead. The lead of the article is concise, they get to the point of what the topic and move on, not saying anything about the different sections in the article. All the content in the article is relevant to the topic. However some of the data and content may be dated. Some missing content is all the information about illegal trade or even legal trade in places other than Mexico and the United States. The article I feel is neutral, they focused on giving all the facts on the data that they had in the article, and refrained from saying that one thing was more important than the other. A claim I felt was biased was not including anything about the United States illegal trade. The articles sources all feel like reliable secondary sources. Some of the articles may be a little bit out of date, but there is also a good amount that are more current than the others. Better articles are out there, peer-reviewed articles international websites, or scholar articles. No grammatic errors within the article, the article flowed well and did not jump back and forth. There is a graph within the article that lacks a caption for it, the image is easy to look at, to to busy of a graph but do not know what it is portraying. The article apart of Wikiproject Birds. Overall the article is on the right track but It could use some work. The strengths of the article are that they have a lot of good data on the subject. I would improve this article by including information about more countries, the overall process of the illegal trade from country to country. For completeness I would put this article in the category that is slightly above poor development.