User:AlgalBloom34/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 impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
 * Evaluating article to fill in content gaps related to ecotoxicology and the effects of pollutants on biological systems that receive them.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Somewhat, the Intro sentence describes the oil spill but not necessarily the environmental impacts.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Somewhat, petroleum toxicity, oxygen depletion, and use of corexit are cited as major impact sources, however do not proportionally represent the sections discussed.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Corexit was cited in the lead section but only mentioned sparsely, 2 other times.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise but not entirely focused on the topic at hand; it more so introduces the oil spill than the environmental impacts discussed.

Lead evaluation
The article's Lead is clear and concise but not entirely focused on the environmental impacts of the Deep Water Horizon Spill. Rather, it gives a broad scope of detail but never really outlines the environmental impacts covered by the article.

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

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the topic but not entirely up to date - research up to 3 years post-spill are presented for acute and chronic marine-impact studies, but nothing up to present day (2020). Nothing regarding underrepresented populations is discussed, such as the communities impacted by the spills and environment regulatory concerns that may have lead to the spill.

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
Some of the descriptive language lends towards anthropocizing of affected wildlife, especially in the dolphin section. Ideally, language should be revised and perhaps a more balanced mention of toxicological affects at the organism, species, and community level should be evaluated.

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

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are mostly current, relevant to the time of the spill but not so much to the evolution of toxicological research. It warrants research to locate more recent analyses of the effects of the petroleum spill.

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
The article is not well organized. While there are minimal grammatical and spelling errors, the sections seem redundant with the largest ones describing the least significant effects. I believe many sections can be consolidated and outlined clearer in the Lead section.

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 images are not very comprehensive in depicting marine impacts - it would be helpful to reader comprehension if they were a little zoomed in and laid out on both sides of the text, perhaps even one or two centered. All seem to be cited properly, according to wikipedia guidelines.

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 article is C rated and there seems to be some discussion on content gaps, organizational issues, and cited articles that lack credibility. The article discusses content in a way that touches barely on the interconnectedness of ecosystems and species, as well as the toxicological pathways within organisms and dispersal within the ecosystem (ocean).

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, this article serves as a great framework, touching on some important broad concepts that outline the environmental impacts of the oil spill. However, it's citations may require further review, quotations some refinement, and sections some major re-organization to consolidate information and emphasize the most prevalent points.

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: