User:Novemberjazz/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: Eichler's rule
After a basic overview, I have concluded that this article is woefully short, specifically compared with similar biological rules (Harrison's rule, Lack's principle). The page – as it exists now – does not have an appropriate lede/body ratio. The page cites only three sources, including one in German.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- The current lead includes a basic description of the concept, though it does not adequately summarize the body because there is no real body paragraph.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- No, and the article lacks sections completely.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No, but the following paragraph contains material that is not referenced in the lede, providing a mention of "Vas" without describing who they are or their research.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The lead is adequately concise.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes, the sources are directly related to the concept.
Is the content up-to-date?
- Partially. Since the page was created in 2012, there have only been 20 edits in the subsequent eight years.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Based on the article's brevity, I believe that there is plenty of reliably-sourced material that belongs in the article.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- The article does not deal with an equity gap.

Is the article neutral?
- Yes, the article is written neutrally.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No, the material is unbiased and neutral.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Because of the low number of sources, there appears to be an over-reliance a 1941 study by Zoltán Vas that uses parasitic lice as a test subject. Based on a search for the term on JSTOR, there are several additional sources on the rule's application for genetic diversity between hosts and their parasites.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- As mentioned above, the article includes the Vas' conclusion from the parasitic lice study (...exceptionally strong correlational evidence supports the positive co-variation between the species richness of avian and mammalian families and the generic richness of their parasitic lice). While this may be the consensus on Eichler's rule, it may be productive to search for alternative theories into the rule, or studies that yielded differing results if any were conducted.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Facts in the article are supported by only three studies. The page, however, is anemic, and is likely missing key facts and pieces of information from new academic research.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- No, there are far more sources available on academic databases apart from the three currently listed on the page.
Are the sources current?
- No, the sources are from 1941, 1992, and 2012.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- No, all authors cited are men. Most are European, and all are white.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes, the studies are archived/hosted by JSTOR, a science-based non-profit, and an independent scientific organization.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- The current prose appears fairly concise.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- No. There is some unnecessary bold text that I would remove once I begin the editing process. I've found that – in Wikipedia articles – only the title of the article is bolded the first time it is mentioned in prose (usually in the lead). Further bold text is unnecessary and visually unappealing.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- There are only two paragraphs in the article: a lede and single body paragraph. Formatting is needed.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- The one image on the page corresponds with the lice experiment, but there are no additional images.
Are images well-captioned?
- The single image uses the caption When comparing host sister clades we tend to find taxonomically richer parasite fauna on the taxonomically richer group of hosts. Who is "we"? This needs some minor copyediting.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- The user that uploaded the page's single image has claimed the image as their own work. I highly doubt the user who uploaded the image originated the image. Reverse image searching should clear this up.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Yes.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- The article's talk page has not received any trafic.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- The article is rated stub. It is a part of WikiProject Medicine, Stub-Class medicine articles, Low-importance medicine articles, and All WikiProject Medicine articles
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- We have not covered this specific concept in class, though we have discussed genetic variation.

What is the article's overall status?
- The article is currently assessed at stub status. Bringing the article to start would be an improvement.
What are the article's strengths?
- The article contains no "fluff" needed to be trimmed down. It is a non-that has received little attention in eight years. Tt is about as "bare bones" as a page can be, providing me with plenty of possibilities for expansion.
How can the article be improved?
- Expansion, expansion, expansion. Additional sources.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- The article is well-developed, but should be expanded. Now, I would describe the article as overly brief or too restricted in scope.

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 — ~~~~