Article Evaluation
Eye color
- Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? For the most part, this article is very complete and thorough in dealing with the topic of human eye color. The main distraction of this article is that the opening paragraph gave context about animal eye anatomy instead of a human's.
- Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? The information itself is quite relevant--with most of the data stemming from this century. The data itself is lacking an easy to read format with graphs and charts explaining this set.
- What else could be improved? There is a section of the wikipedia page that is a "spectrum of eye color" which in actuality is just a ton of different pictures of eyes mashed together. This section in particular seems quite unorganized and is in need of some serious labeling.
- Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article is as neutral as one can be with the exception of the section that speaks about modeling and the attractiveness factor of a person based off of eye color.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? One viewpoint that is over represented is the medical viewpoint of this article. The article allots too much space for the sections on different eye diseases and alterations
- Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? I clicked on 5 different hyperlinks and they all worked.
- Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Most of the references in this article are indeed appropriate and reliable sources. Most of the information comes from online articles written by intellectuals; or other wikipedia pages. The sources are not neutral in the sense of funding and influence, but are neutral when talking about the given information. No bias is noted.
- What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are many conversations; most about the graphs and tables. A large section is devoted to the author needing to stay on track with the "approved" sources in the field.
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is not a part of any wiki projects, and is rated as a C class article.
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Well, I chose an anatomy page--which is not directly related to environmental sciences but is influenced by the sun; which we have not talked about yet.