User:Walfonsof/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: (Human ecology)
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. (I have chosen this article because it talks in depth about how interconnected humans are with their surroundings and how those surrounding affect or shape in which we behave as we go through life)

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? (Yes, it does.)
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? (Yes.)
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? (No)
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? (It is concise.)

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? (Yes, the article's content is relatively relevant to the topic.)
Is the content up-to-date?(Yes, the article presents information that is up to date.)
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? (All the content found within the article belongs there.)
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? (No, it does not.)

Is the article neutral? (Yes)
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? (No)
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? (No, it is a well balanced and written article)
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? (No, it does not)

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? (Yes, they are.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? (The sources reflect the extensive availability literature on the topic.)
Are the sources current? (Some of the sources are somewhat outdated but nonetheless the information in them seems to be crucial for the development of the article.)
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? (The sources seem to be pointing to the direction of a quite diverse and representative spectrum.)
Check a few links. Do they work? ( Yes, they worked.)

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? (The article is well written and is easy to read.)
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? (I did not catch any grammatical or spelling errors within the article.)
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? (The structure of the article could be improved, but overall it still is well organized.)

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? (It only contains one picture which I think is helpful to some extent, but it'll be a better idea if more pictures were incorporated to further the understanding of the topic)
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)

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? ( On the talk page some someone suggested to include more about human ecology specifically)
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? (The article is C-rated. It is part some WikiProjects.)
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? (Its more science based that law.)

What is the article's overall status? (The grade for the article is a C, which indicates that most likely it will have to be improved.)
What are the article's strengths? (One of the strength of the article is the amount of references that is has, which could me that research has been well done.)
How can the article be improved? (This article can be improved my making a significance change in the way that it laid or by organizing the topics/subtopics a little bit better.)
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? (I would say this article is underdeveloped for it needs more work to be done.)

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 — ~~~~