 | 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?
(Provide a link to the article here.)
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
This is the article recommended by Dr. KFF, specifically the mating and reproduction sections, presumably because of their relevance to evolution.
Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
Overall this article seems relatively well developed with a generally appropriate outline. However, the writing style can be hard to read at times and phrasing could be more concise. Additionally, there are parts that have some jargon that would be unfriendly to a lay-person or seem like they may be close-paraphrasing results from a paper. The mating section dives right into specific details of the mating system while overlooking important background information that would be helpful to readers. For instance, the section would benefit from explaining if breeding is seasonal, if there are any courtship rituals or direct competition between males etc. Sometimes this article references ideas but doesn't fully explain or introduce them. For instance, the inbreeding avoidance section states that there are numerous pre-copulatory avoidance mechanisms but doesn't list or explain what they are. Similarly, the discussion of orange spots in male guppies could be reorganized for coherence. I found the reproduction section easy to follow, however a lot of the reproduction information would be helpful to know before reading the mating section. Perhaps it would have served the article better to make reproduction the broader heading underneath ecology and behavior and make mating behavior section as a subsection within it.
These sections seemed to be well cited, primarily referencing peer reviewed articles, however, most seem to be relatively old so It would good to incorporate any significant new findings from the last few years. The content also seems unbiased (although I'm not sure what biases you can have related to guppy reproduction) and effectively used links to other articles so it was easy to find more information. Finally, the pictures and videos were effective aids although more impactful images could probably be found for the mating section.
| 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?
(Provide a link to the article here.)
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
This is the article recommended by Dr. KFF, specifically the mating and reproduction sections, presumably because of their relevance to evolution.
Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
Overall this article seems relatively well developed with a generally appropriate outline. However, the writing style can be hard to read at times and phrasing could be more concise. Additionally, there are parts that have some jargon that would be unfriendly to a lay-person or seem like they may be close-paraphrasing results from a paper. The mating section dives right into specific details of the mating system while overlooking important background information that would be helpful to readers. For instance, the section would benefit from explaining if breeding is seasonal, if there are any courtship rituals or direct competition between males etc. Sometimes this article references ideas but doesn't fully explain or introduce them. For instance, the inbreeding avoidance section states that there are numerous pre-copulatory avoidance mechanisms but doesn't list or explain what they are. Similarly, the discussion of orange spots in male guppies could be reorganized for coherence. I found the reproduction section easy to follow, however a lot of the reproduction information would be helpful to know before reading the mating section. Perhaps it would have served the article better to make reproduction the broader heading underneath ecology and behavior and make mating behavior section as a subsection within it.
These sections seemed to be well cited, primarily referencing peer reviewed articles, however, most seem to be relatively old so It would good to incorporate any significant new findings from the last few years. The content also seems unbiased (although I'm not sure what biases you can have related to guppy reproduction) and effectively used links to other articles so it was easy to find more information. Finally, the pictures and videos were effective aids although more impactful images could probably be found for the mating section.