User:Erileywiki/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article[edit]

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. It is listed as a C-class article of High Importance.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes the content is mostly relevant to the topic. In some areas it 'compares' other related topics but that probably shouldn't be included in this article.
Is the content up-to-date? The content hasn't been heavily edited in a while. However, the research seems recent enough for the topic
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content about the pelagic and aphotic zone should not be included. The section on heterogeneity probably shouldn't be there either even though it is relate to benthic algae. Just a link to the page would have worked without a description

Is the article neutral? The article is mostly neutral however there a few phrases saying certain things are important or poor, which is opinions.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There doesn't appear to be a bias plus I don't even really know how you could be biased about the benthic zone. Maybe if you were a pelagic zone researcher and hated benthic organisms? I don't know.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There seems to be an overrespresentation of microbiologists for an article about a marine ocean zone. There is a lot of talk about how the benthic organisms are used for other purposes, rather than just talking about the benthos itself.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, I don't see any indication of this.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not everything is cited that should be. The sources that are in place are hit or miss on reliability. Some are from well respected journals while others are blogs and Mirriam-Webster dictionary entries.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources I would say do not reflect the currently literature that could probably be found on the benthic zone. Way more academic sources need to be used.
Are the sources current? Most of the sources are current which is good.
Check a few links. Do they work? The links I tried did work.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is not clear or easy to read. There are some sections that are redundant, like the description section, and others that should be in a different article, like the ecological research section. The organisms section needs to be expanded as the organisms are a main part of what categorizes a benthic zone.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I didn't see any spelling or grammatical errors.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No, as mentioned before some of the sections are redundant or should be in separate articles.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article includes one image that does not really enhance understanding of the topic; I would have chosen a different image.
Are images well-captioned? The image is well captioned.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The image does adhere to copyright regulations because it is from public domain.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The singular image isn't really appealing.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is one conversation to which no one responded about editing an external source link and another conversation about confused marine biology students trying to talk about mass flux and they added a section on nutrient flux which is kind of off topic.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as a C and is part of Fisheries and Fishing, Oceans, Lakes, Rivers, Biology, and Limnology and Oceanography.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I'm not quite sure what this question means. When I learned about the benthic zone in my marine biology class we focused heavily on benthic organisms which this article does not.

What is the article's overall status? The article is not reliable as a source and was right to be rated as a C.
What are the article's strengths? The article has a very strong definition of benthic zone.
How can the article be improved? Better, more reliable sources need to be added and there needs to be a complete overhaul on organization.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is underdeveloped.

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 — ~~~~