User:QMcC/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: Benthic zone
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- This article deals with the Benthic zone of the ocean. I chose this article to evaluate for my deep sea biology class because as far as I understand the Benthic zoneis currently the most explored zone of the deep sea.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, the first sentence provides a rough definition of the topic that one could read quickly to get an understanding of the term/topic.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- No, there is no description of the major sections outside of the table of contents which displays the names of the major sections.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No, all of the information is backed up in greater detail later in the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- To me I think it is concise. Didn't feel overly detailed when I read it.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes, the content in the article is relevant to the topic.
Is the content up-to-date?
- The content seems up to date as far as I know, but looked like the talk page was last added to in 2007?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Again, with my limited knowledge of the subject at the moment it seems like all the most important stuff has been included in the article. Everything I read seemed relevant as well. If I would add anything it would be in the Habitat section where I would talk about biodiversity hotspots found on the deep sea floor.

Is the article neutral?
- Yes the article is neutral.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No I don't believe so.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- I noticed that while I was reading the article a lot of the sentences were tagged with "citation needed" at the end where a source would usually be.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- There are probably more studies that could be added.
Are the sources current?
- Yes and no, most recent citation is from 2014.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Most a clicked on did but one of them came up with a "page not found" error message. (Source 14)

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- The article is well written and easy to read.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Not that I could find.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes, It is broken down into manageable sections.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- It only includes a single image of some Benthic fauna.
Are images well-captioned?
- Yes the image is well captioned.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Yes?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- It is on the top so yes but there could definitely be some photos added to enhance the page.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- Most of the entries have to do with fixing links or what someone added to the page. Also were entries about what people thought should be added. It doesn't seem like the talk page is used very frequently for this page.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- I couldn't tell if the article was rated or not but it seemed like it was a part of many different WikiProjects.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- It includes a lot more about Benthic zones at depths far shallower than we are concerened about in Deep Sea Bio class.

What is the article's overall status?
- The article is good, but not comprehensive and I think it is probably too short.
What are the article's strengths?
- What is written is well written. Good lead that gives a basic overview of the topic. Someone who is casually interested would probably be very pleased with the article.
How can the article be improved?
- More information and sources could be added.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- This article could be added to. While it gives a general picture of the topic, I'm sure far more substantial information is available on the topic in the literature that could be added to the page.

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 — ~~~~