Wikipedia:Article assessment/Extinct mammals/Quagga
Assessment 
|
| Extinct mammals |
| Assessment completed 27 February 2006 – 5 March 2006 |
| Assessments |
| Aurochs Australopithecus |
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.
- 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
Review by violet/riga
edit- 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)
Review by HereToHelp
edit- 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.
Review by [name]
edit- Coverage and factuality:
- Writing style:
- Structure:
- Aesthetics:
- Overall: