User:AliciaJurado/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: It is a page that I am interested in reading and it looks like it has a substantial talk page.

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 lead includes an intro sentence that clearly describes the topic, but it links to multiple different wikipages so it feels lengthy. The Lead does include a brief description of the major sections without direct reference to its specific topics. Concise explanation of the development of the term and general field of environmental science.

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
All sections of the page are relevant to the topic of the article. Many of the articles in the citations are relatively recent, yet older sources were used to cite scientific explanations and the history of the subject.

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 article seems to maintain a neutral stance as it focuses mostly on describing the different types of sciences that are included in the major field of environmental science. There is no bias or overrepresentation of any one topic in the article.

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?

Various other wikipedia pages are linked throughout the article, but there are few direct citations for the a majority of the articles. The sources that are provided are recent, most published after 2005. All of the linked references worked. Overall, the article references on the article seem to be light.

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 easy to follow and is very well organized into individual sections. I did not catch any spelling or grammatical errors.

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
Each section contained one or two photos to show the main subject of each science without being overpowering. Every photo is captioned and linked to additional information.

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
Most of the conversation comes from the first versions of the page and changing the focus from political to more scientific. It seems that most of these issues have been resolved. Many of the older posts mention the article being underdeveloped and political. Many of the more recent (within a year) replies seem to discuss the need to expand on many of the sections as there is not a lot of information. The need for new pages and citations for the current version is talked about.

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
The article provides a good basis and explanation of the field of environmental science however it does seem to be missing some relevant information. The article aso contains very few citations that would make the information included much more reliable.

It seems like the article has gone through a lot of changes since its start according to the talk page and it still needs improvement.

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: