User:Js98575/Evaluate an Article
LEAD SECTION
the lead sections defines what a dolphin is and its taxonomy very well. it is concise and to the point. someone who does not known what a dolphin is could have a basic understanding by just looking at the picture in the lead section and the short description. it does not give an overview of the main sections of the article however, you have to keep reading for that, so that is one thing i would change about the lead section, is to add more of a guideline about what the article will be talking about.
CONTENT
this article has a majority of relevant information including the size of dolphins, habitat and spread, etymology, hybridization, evolution, anatomy, senses, and so forth. some of the only information i would choose to delete from the article would be the derivation from greek and latin of words of interest. it is too long in this article, multiple paragraphs, when one sentence is plenty to get the point across about why a dolphin is named what it is.
TONE AND BALANCE
this article is written in a neutral tone since there are no opinions to be had about dolphins. the article does not state wether or not there is an interest or dislike in the mammal.
SOURCES AND REFERENCES
this article is backed up by over 200 sources, and as far as my research can tell, they are all reputable sources and recent as well. none were from before the year 2000, which shows to me that the data and research is recent enough to be accurate.
IMAGES AND MEDIA
there were a plethora of images in every section to provide more detail and to show a better understanding of each topic. one thing i particulary liked about this article was the diagrams and pictures in the anatomy section since some of the terms can get extensive, the images provided a clearer picture of what was stated in the article, making it easier to follow along and more informative.
OVERALL IMPRESSIONS
my overall impression of this article was that is it is very well researched and thought out. the only thing i would want to change would be more clear separation of the topics, and a better organizational layout. the article kind of jumped from topic to topic and it was not very cohesive, and i would like to have seen each section lead into each other.
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article because i want to be a marine mammologist, and it was a very interesting article to read, it provided a lot more than just simple dolphin facts, and it is important to keep the conversations moving about mammals.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The lead sections defines what a dolphin is and its taxonomy very well. It is concise and to the point. Someone who does not known what a dolphin is could have a basic understanding by just looking at the picture in the lead section and the short description. It does not give an overview of the main sections of the article however, you have to keep reading for that, so that is one thing I would change about the lead section, is to add more of a guideline about what the article will be talking about.
This article has a majority of relevant information including the size of dolphins, habitat and spread, etymology, hybridization, evolution, anatomy, senses, and so forth. Some of the only information I would choose to delete from the article would be the derivation from greek and latin of words of interest. It is too long in this article, multiple paragraphs, when one sentence is plenty to get the point across about why a dolphin is named what it is.
This article is written in a neutral tone since there are no opinions to be had about dolphins. The article does not state wether or not there is an interest or dislike in the mammal.
This article is backed up by over 200 sources, and as far as my research can tell, they are all reputable sources and recent as well. None were from before the year 2000, which shows to me that the data and research is recent enough to be accurate.
There were a plethora of images in every section to provide more detail and to show a better understanding of each topic. One thing I particularly liked about this article was the diagrams and pictures in the anatomy section since some of the terms can get extensive, the images provided a clearer picture of what was stated in the article, making it easier to follow along and more informative.
My overall impression of this article was that is it is very well researched and thought out. The only thing I would want to change would be more clear separation of the topics, and a better organizational layout. The article kind of jumped from topic to topic and it was not very cohesive, and I would like to have seen each section lead into each other.