Wikipedia:Article assessment/Extinct mammals/Quagga

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: Quagga

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.

Contents

[edit] Review by Quadell

  • Coverage and factuality: 8
    • Many sources, inline refs, no obvious gaps in coverage, but refs should be standardized
  • Writing style: 8
    • Really good. But it jumps around a little too much.
  • Structure: 8
    • Well organized.
  • Aesthetics: 7
    • Just fine, but nothing outstanding
  • Overall: 8

[edit] Review by violet/riga

  • Coverage and factuality: 6
Not enough details about the animal itself, tending to focus instead on its extinction. There are some commented references but it is generally poorly done.
  • Writing style: 6
Some poor writing, particularly at the start of paragraphs.
  • Structure: 6
The sections seem to overlap in places and could do with being rewritten.
  • Aesthetics: 7
Somewhat top-heavy, but the images are very good.
  • Overall: 6

This could be an interesting article, but is rather poorly organised at the moment. violet/riga (t) 20:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review by HereToHelp

  • Coverage and factuality: 5
Could use more sources, non-inlined references, a bunch of comments <!-- --> tags that would be useful in footnotes.
  • Writing style: 9
Nothing stands out but it isn't exeptional either.
  • Structure: 8
The article flows okay, but again, it needs work to go far.
  • Aesthetics: 7
Two images. One's a drawing and the other's black and white. Though there's good reason for that, a map of their former range, and perhaps showing a few other points in the article, would be nice.
  • Overall: 7
Like most things I've assessed, the references are the weakest link.

[edit] Review by [name]

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