User:AlexCorrigan/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: (link) Scientific Consensus
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because I think the process of reaching scientific consensus is of continual importance to us as scientists, and I wanted to read what Wikipedia has on the topic.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The topic is clearly defined and well explained in the introduction. The authors briefly describe the major sections to be covered but without directly relating it to the sections below. They did include a box detailing the contents of the article after the introduction.

For the topic, the article seems concise while still covering an important breadth of information.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * The article's content is overall relevant to the topic, providing a nice introduction to


 * 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?

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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * It looks like all of the facts have citations, and the sources provide a decent capture of the literature on the topic.
 * Many of the sources are from within the past two decades, though a significant number are older. Given the nature of the topic, I do not think this presents an issue.
 * I tested a few links and they worked.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is well-written and fairly accessible.
 * I could not find any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * The article was decently well organized, and I felt that it covered the main points of the topic.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * There are no images.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * The authors are discussing how best to include information from relevant scientists but through potentially less relevant sources.
 * The article is rated C class and is considered to be of high importance. It is part of the WikiProject Skepticism.
 * I wouldn't say that we have fully addressed the topic in class, but it takes a more historical and philosophical approach to the discussion than we usually do in class.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * The overall status is good. I would say the article is strong in its explanations and definitions, and could be improved in terms of accessibility to the layperson.
 * The article appears fairly complete and well-developed.


 * 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?

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: