User:Alexis291/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: Water purification
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because water purification is an important part of water delivery.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It does.  It describes what water purification is.  I would have added that purification depends on the water purpose.  They state that in the next sentence, but I would have left it in the introductory sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? For the most part it does.  Personally, I think it's missing a part where the steps are mentioned.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It has some stats from the World Health Organization in the lead, but they are not found, or even mentioned, in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.  If it moves the WHO stats to another place and put the major steps in there, it would be perfect.

Lead evaluation
The lead is well written, besides the paragraph of the stats, everything in the lead is relevant.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.  The article talks about the goal of water purification, and it focuses on the purification steps and techniques.
 * Is the content up-to-date? It is up-to-date.  It mentions pre-chlorination, but states that it's not used anymore.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Purification of wastewater is not adressed, only from purification natural water sources are addressed in the article.  Also, I believe the membrane section could use an expansion.  It's briefly mentioned, and membranes are important in water purification.

Content evaluation
The content is missing purification of wastewater as a source. Wastewater is becoming an important issue with climate change (maybe this is a Californian point of view).

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? yes.  The article does not take a stand or favors a technique over another.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are not in the article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? As mentioned before, I think the menbrane subsection appears to be underrepresented. Also, purification of wastewater is not adressed in the article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? It does not. it just presents water purification without any bias.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article takes a neutral standpoint and it does not seem biased. One water is a viewpoint that's becoming important, and it's being left out by not considering wastewater as a water source.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes.  They are.  All facts have a secondary source as a back up.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.  All the sources are related to water purification.
 * Are the sources current? Most of the sources are current. There are a couple from the early part of the 20th century, but most are after the 2000s.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? One of the links did not work, because the paper was removed ( Health risks from drinking demineralised water. (PDF) . Rolling revision of the WHO Guidelines for drinking-water quality. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2004).  Besides that, all the links i tried worked.

Sources and references evaluation
All facts are backed up by secondary sources, and all of them are related to the topic in mention. Most of the literature is from after the year 2000, but there are some that are from the 20th century, and one from the 19th century, but its used in the history section, thus it's pertinent.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.  The flow of the article is smooth, and it is easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? it didn't.  However, it is written in British English, and that threw me off a bit.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.  Besides the Lead, there are major points as purification techniques, controversies, and history.

Organization evaluation
The article flows smoothly, and it's easy to read. It does not containg grammar or spelling errors. however, the fact that it's written in British English threw me off a bit. The article is well organized, all the major topics are divided in sections and each section in subsections that facilitate its reading.

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 has images, but the ones that are the most beneficial in understanding the topic are the ones for filters. All images have a caption that helps guide the reader of the context of the picture. All pictures are clear of watermarks, titles, and distortions. Also the pictures have credits when clicked on them, thus they adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. All the images are laid out in the left part of the article, they don't interrupt the flow of reading, and are visually appealing.

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 has some very interesting conversations, some of them have been addressed, but other have not. For example, one of the conversations was about why the article was related to the hydrogen Wiki Project, this was addressed, but another person was commenting about the section on chlorination, and that it should be more in line with the article of chlorination. This was not addressed, because the main article of chlorination is more general, and not necessarily about chlorination in water treatment. The article on Wikipedia does not discuss the mechanics of the contaminants, or dissinfectants in water. Thus there is no way to make a comparison from the class and the article.

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
Overall, the article is very helpful, it's very detailes, and it shows modern ways to treat water. The strenghts of the article is its readability, and the fact that it's written in a way that everybody could understand it. The article can be improved if the wastewater source is added, since it's becoming an important source due to climate change. The article is well developed. it is noticeable that the people writing it are knowledgeable, and have put a lot of time and effort into it.

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: