User:Katelynmcewen/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: Bird's wing
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have a good knowledge base of this concept, and an interest in the topic.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes, although it is quite short and basic
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? no
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes (the bit about terrestrial and aquatic birds isn't elaborated elsewhere in the article)
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? relatively concise, although again the portion about terrestrial and aquatic wings isn't very necessary

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? yes
Is the content up-to-date? as far as I know yes
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I feel like it would have been a good idea to include a section about the different classes of feathers (ie primaries vs secondaries etc), as there is a diagram of them but it isn't explained or elaborated upon
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no

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
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes I believe so
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I feel like there could have been a few more sources included for the sections about elliptical and high speed wings
Are the sources current? no, there aren't any included that were written later than 2011
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? It's hard to say
Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the information is presented in a relatively concise manner
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Mostly yes

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the anatomical diagram is the most helpful
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?
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C- class, low importance in the Animals and Biology WikiProjects
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It doesn't really

What is the article's overall status? Low
What are the article's strengths? Has an interesting take in terms of the wing shapes etc
How can the article be improved? It lacks some of the basic information and dives right into the nitty gritty of aspect ratios etc. Could include some basic info on the different feathers of the wing, and elaborate/ give examples of the terrestrial and aquatic wings mentioned in the lead
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Its a little underdeveloped at this point

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 — ~~~~