User:Alaska Wong/Evaluate an Article

 CO2 fertilization effect 

CO2 fertilization effect

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes. The sentence is concise and allows the reader to stop there or keep reading for more information


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

There are only two major sections. The lead hits on one of them but no the other.


 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)

It does. I do think that this information is still important. New sections?


 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

I think it is lacking detail as of now.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

Yes, the cited sources are recent and the article was edited recently.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

There is content missing. The article surely needs additions. I do not think there is superfluous


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

I am unsure now, but I don't think so. I can only imagine this is a concern where the topic concerns politics.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view?

Yes.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, its states facts plainly.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I don't think so, but it's hard to say with so few viewpoints.


 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

Unknown what those are at this time.


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No. Purely informative.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

More sources could be included to add to current and future sections of this topic.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes, but there's room for more that are more recent.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

It seems like they are mostly males. Not very diverse.


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

I think there are just more sources covering the same sections. The article cites NASA a lot, maybe direct studies could be better.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

For the most part. It is very short at this stage so it is hard to call it concise. One section is mostly bullet points, this could be improved.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

I don't think so.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

As well-organized as it can be with this amount of content.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

There is no media for this article. This is an area where large improvements will be made.


 * Are images well-captioned?


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

I would guess there will be a lot of conversation about what sections to add (or not). The highly technical detail of the topic may be hard to get right. Collaboration through the Talk page may be helpful in this regard.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

Start-class. It is part of the Wiki Education foundation.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

There is no discussion yet.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?

It is clearly in the early stages.


 * What are the article's strengths?

It has a good start! The lead is structured well, and the lead paragraph may not need any editing.


 * How can the article be improved?

More content in current sections and as new sections.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

It seems adequately developed for this stage of completion.