Wikipedia:Article assessment/Extinct mammals/Myotragus balearicus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Assessment  |
| Extinct mammals |
| Assessment completed 27 February 2006 – 5 March 2006 |
| Assessments |
| Aurochs Australopithecus |
Assessment of an article under the topic Extinct mammals.
Article: Myotragus balearicus
Details of the assessment method can be found at the main page. Feel free to add comments when you assess an article, or use the talk page for discussion.
[edit] Review by Martin Walker
- Coverage and factuality: 6
- Seems fairly good coverage. I'm not a biologist, I can't validate the facts. The "external links" should be listed instead as references if they were used to write the article, all are acceptable (govt) web refs. If not, then the refs need to be supplied. I would expect that more suitable content could be found and added.
- Writing style: 6
- Rather clumsy in places, e.g., "The reason for this failure to domesticate it is probably that Myotragus did not reproduce in captivity or not at a suitable speed, because in the caves only remains of adult individuals have been found." Still pretty readable for the most part. Hint of POV in places.
- Structure: 7
- Headings are reasonable
- Aesthetics: 6
- A couple of pictures would be nice if available - any photos from 3000 BC should be public domain by now?!
- Overall: 6
- A fair attempt, a good solid article, I'm learning a lot through these!
[edit] Review by violet/riga
- Coverage and factuality: 7
- Good coverage but very poor referencing.
- Writing style: 5
- Some informal language ("Strangely...", "it is a clear example of..."), some poorly constructed sentences and some terms need explanation.
- Structure: 7
- Generally quite good, but could do with some second-level headings after a slight restructure.
- Aesthetics: 7
- Difficult to get images I'm sure, but at least one more would be nice.
- Overall: 6
Generally good information but presented in a poor way, using bad language and no references. violet/riga (t) 12:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Review by [name]
- Coverage and factuality:
- Writing style:
- Structure:
- Aesthetics:
- Overall:
