User:Cmhernandez/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]Fun Fact about me: I love sharks. Shark week in my household is considered a holiday week. I chose this article because it was a C-rated article and thought it could use some attention.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The wording in the first sentence is not appealing, "The hammerhead sharks are a group of sharks that for the Sphyrnidae." The lead of the article speaks of hammerhead sharks, which is good because the article is titled Hammerhead Sharks. It does not seem to give a lot of information to draw in the reader. I think the wording is not concise and relatively choppy. The lead does not include a any type of description of what the article will be discussing.
To me, there seems to be a lot of information missing. This is more of a barebones article about hammerheads. This article does seem to be neutral. This is a neutral topic that just talks about the marine facts of the hammerhead shark.
The pictures are clear and easy to see but the pictures do not have a source attached to them. The photographer is not being given credit unless you actually click on the picture. Is that normal? The pictures are great quality though, very pleasing to look at (Except for the shark murder, not pleasing to look at).
When I click on some of the sources that were provided, it takes me to links such as ScienceDirect, Discovery News, Earth News, and other science sites. I consider this to be relatively reliable information. Then we have some sites like SportsDiver which I am not sure if it would be considered
As I look at the talk page, it is just correction of information. I also saw people complaining of the pictures, saying that they could not see the shark. someone had edited a picture and justified why they edited it. Also, Also people just expressing what I believe are personal opinions. It also people asking for more information on the that was not there. They came to the Wikipedia page to find more information on hammerhead sharks and they were disappointed in what they found.