User:DIGO0399/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: Mate choice
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I am currently researching mate choice in Guppies and Endler's Guppies, and there is a very interesting history regarding how humans have understood mate choice as an aspect of biology and psychology.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the introduction focuses more on how mate choice can lead to evolution, rather than introducing the subtopics of the contents.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very concise.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
Is the content up-to-date? Yes, and most current topics relevant to mate choice are included.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think the affect of parasite stress on mate choice is not as relevant as the other topics because it is rare and does not occur in every species. However, it is still an interesting and influential aspect of mate choice when it does occur. I would not remove it.
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 have also tried clicking on several of the citations and have not found any that do not work.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
Are the sources current? Yes. There are some older sources (1970s/1980s) but the majority of the research is from the 2000s.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

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

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
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. I do think there could be more images added to further enhance and demonstrate the discussed topics.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? In the "talk" section, several editors recommended incorporating more primate and even human mate choice in order to make the topic more applicable. This would also lead other scientists to view this area of study as relevant. However, it is difficult to ethically study this topic in humans and other primates, so this may be hard to execute.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is under the WikiProject "Animals", is rated a C quality and mid-importance.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Our focus so far has been more on cosmology and we are just recently beginning to study biology and medicine. I am interested to see how we cover these topics and what past cultures have believed about physical attraction and love.

What is the article's overall status?
What are the article's strengths?
How can the article be improved?
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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 — ~~~~