User:RealShirty/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]I thought it would be interesting to read about dogs' fur types. The pictures were also fun to view while I read :)
Evaluate the article
[edit]Article seems up to date, including information from a 2021 study. Organization if mostly good. The lead section could do without discussion of the double coat and the difference between hair and fur, as this could be saved for its own brief section later and isn't critical to a general understanding of the topic. I would suggest moving the "Genetics" section down, perhaps closer to the "Shedding" section, since it is likely not the first item of interest to many audiences on this topic. The color nomenclature and pattern descriptions are organized well, though it's somewhat strange that a table is used for the patterns but not for the colors. The "Nutritional impacts on coat" section is also strange in its use of a table to summarize nutrients before detailing each one in its own paragraph anyway; the table is redundant.
There is a grammatical error in using "however" as a conjunction within the "Genetics" section: "The study found that most dog colour haplotypes were similar to most wolf haplotypes, however dominant yellow in dogs was closely related to white in arctic wolves from North America."There are quotes around "that of its working surroundings" in the "Brown, chocolate, and liver" color section without any clear connection to what is being quoted. It might be more appropriate not to quote this at all and try to paraphrase the idea.
Reference 1, "How to Keep Your Dog Warm This Winter", has a broken link. Reference 12 is sourced from the New York Times, which shouldn't be used as a source for animal anatomy; the source used to gather NYT article's information should be the reference for this Wiki page. Other citations are from a variety of appropriate sources.
This article is part of WikiProject Dogs and of WikiProject Animal anatomy. Discussion on the Talk page is sparse, which makes sense given the article's low-importance rating. Many posts surround classifying coat patterns, including some patterns which were left out or included twice under different names. A couple conversations dealt with moving the Genetics section either lower on the article or to its own article entirely. Discussion was moved to Talk:Coat (animal) several years ago.
Overall, the article is fleshed out and provides a meaningful summary in several areas related to dog fur, which is great. It needs some organizational and presentational improvement though, as if each section was filled individually and not made cohesive with others. This coincides fairly well with its current C-Class rating--serviceable but not polished.