Wikipedia:Article assessment/Extinct mammals/Aurochs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assessment Article assessment
Extinct mammals
Assessment completed
27 February 2006
5 March 2006
Assessments
Aurochs

Australopithecus
Caribbean Monk Seal
Caspian Tiger
Mammoth
Myotragus balearicus
Neanderthal
Portuguese Ibex
Pyrenean Ibex
Quagga
Thylacine

Assessment of an article under the topic Extinct mammals.


Article: Aurochs

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
Good basic coverage of topics, though I'd like to see some coverage of them as a food source for early hunter-gatherers, if this occurred. I'm not a biologist, so I can't validate facts. Another couple of refs would be nice. I think the article could be significantly longer, there must be more suitable content. One question I have - did any of the prehistoric worship/cults of aurochs lead to any modern cultural phenomena such as the "sacred cow" in Hinduism or bullfighting in Spain?
  • Writing style: 10
Excellent, I really enjoyed reading the piece
  • Structure: 8
Also very good.
  • Aesthetics: 7
I'd like to see a drawing of an aurochs, perhaps next to a modern cow or bull.
  • Overall: 7
An excellent short piece, I just wanted a longer article!

[edit] Review by violet/riga

  • Coverage and factuality: 5
Covers most things briefly, but is not thorough in any way when compared to the external links. The absence of inline citations also limits the possible score.
  • Writing style: 8
No major problems, but some parts could do with a little tweak.
  • Structure: 5
The lead is badly done, not summarising the article. The sections are not particularly intuitive.
  • Aesthetics: 5
Badly needs some image of an auroch other thana cave painting.
  • Overall: 5

The article is not particularly well structured and does not cover things well enough. On the plus side, the prose is of a good standard. violet/riga (t) 21:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review by [name]

  • Coverage and factuality:
  • Writing style:
  • Structure:
  • Aesthetics:
  • Overall: