User:Rst12/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?

Keystone species

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because keystone species are a topic of discussion in our class for the next few lectures, and they have always pulled my interest. My initial impression of the article was that it seemed to be a very strong and educational article.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section: The lead section has a great opening sentence that describes exactly what a keystone species is in a concise manner. The lead section of this article gives some form of overview, but I believe this could be slightly improved because some of the sections in the articles would be hard to predict based on the lead section. For example, I would not predict there to be a limitations section based on the lead section. One big strength of this lead section is that it is concise and gives readers a solid understanding of keystone species before reading any other sections of the article. One critique was that this lead section did not need to note that flagship and umbrella species are also important in conservation biology.

Content: The articles content seems relevant to the topic. It has a good flow which makes logical sense for learning about keystone species. It begins with history, which allows for readers to get a firm understanding of where this concept came from. It then moves to definitions which is essential because you must understand the vocabulary to understand the content. It then moves through some specific types and examples of keystone predators before ending with limitations. The article does not deal with a Wikipedia equity gap because keystone species are widely studied and one of the most important aspect of conservation biology. The article seems up to date with my knowledge, and there has been several edits made in the past few months.

Tone and Balance: The article is very neutral and allows readers to develop their own viewpoint on the topics discussed. There aren't viewpoints that are heavily favored, but there is also not viewpoints that are underrepresented. The article gives the facts of keystone species and their position in the environment without trying to sway readers to have an opinion on them. The article does a good job of giving fringe facts to support the main ideas of the articles, without focusing on these little ideas too much.

Sources and References: All facts seem to be back up by reliable sources within the article, though some of the citations could be moved into the paragraph instead of having all citations at the end of the paragraph. This makes it difficult to find the exact place a certain fact came from, for example in the sea otter and kelp forest section. The sources themselves are reliable and support the article well, though they could be a little more current. There is one source from 2024, but the rest are from year earlier, with some being around 30 years old. Since conservation biology is such a rapidly changing concept, it is important to keep sources up to date. The links I clicked on all worked, and the authors seemed to be a diverse group from several different backgrounds. The several links I viewed were all peer reviewed and from notable journals.

Organization and Writing Quality: The article is concise and easy to read - even more so than other Wikipedia articles I have read. I appreciate the way the article is divided into the categories they chose. I feel as though it makes logical sense to have the categories and subcategories it does. Based on my reading and inspection, I could not find any grammatical errors or major writing flaws, though I am sure one or two could be found with a more trained editors eye.

Images and Media: The article includes several high quality images that contribute to the understanding of the article. The images are placed strategically in the article to be both visually appealing and to support the text it is next to. The captions for the photos are simple but effective. All the photos follow the copyright rules, and some of them are even uploaded by the photographers themselves.

Talk Page Discussion: The talk page begins with statements about how the article was so knowledge deficient that it was misleading. However, this was over a decade ago and as we get closer to current day, the talk page shifts its focus as the article gets stronger. The newest posts to the talk page are more focused on arguments about whether certain species are keystone species or not. The article is rated as a Natural sciences good article and a level-5 vital article. Furthermore, it is apart of 3 wikiprojects- environment, biology, and ecology. We have yet to discuss this topic in class, so I am unable to compare this article to our lectures.

Overall Impressions: I would consider this article to be strong and informative. The article has a complete set of information and is a great starting point for understanding keystone species. The strengths of this article is the flow of information and set of factual statements followed by examples and finally limitations. The weakness is that the understanding of conservation biology is constantly changing and I believe this article could be updated with some newer information and findings. Overall, I would say this article is well developed and complete.