This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

• Name of article: (link) Pair bond
• Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
  • I have chosen to evaluate this article because it is related to the course about animal behaviour and the topic seems interesting.

Guiding questions

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

1. Yes the Lead does include an introductory sentence. The sentence is indeed concise and clearly lays out the topic of the article.
2. Yes the lead does included brief description of the article's major sections. But it does seem to be missing some references to the other species it will mention that are highlighted in the headers. It gives several example about the Prairie Voles but does not mention about fishes or birds like the headers below do.
3. No the lead does not include information that is not present in the article. But it does go mention about neurotransmitter found in the Prairie Vole species and state that this higher presence of these chemicals are a reason the Vole experience Pair bonding, But once in the article that section has only two sentences on it and the first one refers you back to the Lead
4. the Lead is an appropriate length for the article and it is mostly concise. It does go into an example in the third paragraph about the Prairie Vole and a comparison to another Vole species that I feel it is too much detail and could have been left for the it's section.

Guiding questions

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
• Is the content up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

1. Yes the content is relevant to the topic. All the section talked about the specific behaviour of Pair bonding and gave examples across different species where pair bonding is observed.
2. Yes the content appears to be up to date with sources dating from 2018.
3. There does appear to be some holes within the article. In the Lead is mentions neurotransmitter that are linked to the Pair bonding behaviour in the Voles. But it is not mention again with any of the other species until it is mentioned in the mammals section and it does not give any more detail then the lead did. As well, the section about different fish species that have shown signs of pair bonding is very choppy and disconnected. Some more information and connections could have smoothed out that section.
   

Guiding questions

• Is the article neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

1. Yes the article is neutral. The authors do not use bias tones or phrases.
2. There are no claims that appear to be heavily biased.
3. The article goes into more detail about pair bonding in humans than any other species and the information within the article doesn't quite match up with the section directly before it. In that section it outlines a different levels of pair bonding as describe in one of the sources. But when it moves on the next section about human pair bonding it brings up two new levels of pair bonding. I found that part to be confusing because it seemed like that information came out of no where.

Guiding questions

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

The way the article is set up, every paragraph is one new source. It does not integrate different sources together to relay the information. Also because of that, there isn't a whole lot of citation occurring. Only one citation after each paragraph. This could explain why the human pair bonding doesn't relate the section above it. They also presented a block quote from one of the sources and this also goes to show they are not paraphrasing and summarizing the information, but rather are taking information from a single source at a time. In saying that some of the sources are older, for example from 2001. But other sources come from 2018 as the most recent. And when clicking on some of the lins they do lead to peer reviewed scholarly articles.

Guiding questions

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The article is mediocrely written. Some of the sections like I mentioned before seem very choppy and do not form complete thoughts. The section about fish showing some signs of pair bonding did not flow or really come to a strong conclusion. That section simply stated some facts and followed up giving two disjunct examples and making it hard to read. As well, where the information is not integrated with many sources it make the article hard to follow. But in saying that there are no grammatical or spelling errors.

The break down of each section was okay. The article dedicates a whole heading to the human pair bonding but only one heading to the other species with each new species getting a sub heading.

Guiding questions

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

The article has three images. Two of the images are enhancing to the understanding of the topic, but one is not. The first image found in the Lead section seemed random and not to fit. It is a picture of a two Northern Gannett's but the caption does not describe anything further and there is no mention of birds in that section. It does however go into great detail about the Voles and there is no picture to enhance that information. But besides that photo the photos overall are laid in a visually appealing way.

Guiding questions

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

There is really any sort of conversation going on, rather there is several suggestion left on how to improve and one comment mentioned how they add the "Humans and Pair Bonding" section. This article is surprisenlsy apart of two WikiPorjects, one for Biology ,and another for Sexology and Sexuality.

Guiding questions

• What is the article's overall status?
• What are the article's strengths?
• How can the article be improved?
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

The article overall was informative and a good introduction into the concept of pair bonding. But the article seems overall unfinished and unrefined. There's a lack of a clear flow throughout the article and certain information should be moved around like the information about the Voles. And other information should be elaborated on like the varieties of pair bonding,

• 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 — ~~~~

• Link to feedback: Talk: Pair Bond