User:Ak828815/Evaluate an Article

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


 * Name of article: Environmental science
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I am an Environmental and Plant Biology major, so this article is relevant to my interests, as well as to this course.

Lead
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?

Lead evaluation
The introductory sentence of the Lead is informative, but extremely lengthy, and seems like it could be confusing for some readers. A lot of the information included in the Lead seems like it should be in the main content section of the article instead- for instance, it seems strange that the Lead discusses the history of environmental science, but the body of the article does not contain a section on this topic. I feel that the Lead could do a better job of focusing on introducing the topic of environmental science, and that a lot of the information currently in the Lead should be in the main body of the article instead.

Content
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?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant, and seems up-to-date, but as I said in my evaluation of the Lead, it seems as though it would be useful for some additional sections to be added, such as the history of environmental science, or the roles of environmental scientists. Also, the section titled "Regulations driving the studies" is strangely worded as a whole, especially the paragraph that is just a list of examples of Environmental Impact Statements from NEPA, without any effort to summarize or explain the particular significance of those Statements.

Tone and Balance
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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The majority of the article seems to be relatively neutral in tone. However, the section "Regulations driving the studies" only mentions the environmental agencies of the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom, with no mention of any other country's involvement in environmental science. I think some additional information, especially about global efforts in environmental science, could make the article much more balanced.

Sources and References
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?

Sources and references evaluation
This article definitely could use some additional citations to back up its claims. For instance, the entire first paragraph of the "Terminology" section attempts to define the phrase "environmental science," but does not cite a source of where this definition came from. In addition, the "Components" section contains multiple examples of the interdisciplinary nature of environmental science, but does not provide sources for these examples, either. The list of NEPA Environmental Impact Statements that I mentioned in my evaluation of the article's content does not contain any citations, either. The sources that do exist, however, are relevant and relatively current. The links in the References and External Links sections do appear to be functional.

Organization
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?

Organization evaluation
There are definitely some issues with phrasing and clarity in this article. In general, I feel as though the article would be a lot more helpful if it was reorganized in some way. There are also a few grammatical errors, such as a few misplaced commas: for example, the sentence from the "Geosciences" subsection that reads: "As an example study, of soils erosion, calculations would be made of surface runoff by soil scientists."

Images and Media
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?

Images and media evaluation
The article contains many pictures, which are helpful in illustrating the topic and have good captions. The images do not appear to violate Wikipedia's copyright regulations, and I see no issues with the way they are laid out.

Checking the talk page
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?

Talk page evaluation
The talk page for this article is relatively short, and the majority of it seems to be criticisms of the article similar to those I have said in my own evaluation. It appears to be a C-Class article, and is part of the Technology WikiProject.

Overall impressions
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?

Overall evaluation
This article seems like it could use a lot of work. It does do a good job of explaining the interdisciplinary nature of environmental science (although those explanations could use some additional citation), as well as outlining the history of environmental science as a field of study. However, in order for it to be truly helpful, it probably ought to be completely reorganized, and a lot of information needs to be added.

Optional activity

 * 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: