User:Aliyajamil/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: Hydrothermal vent
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * Hydrothermal vents are of interest to me.

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 of this article is an appropriate, concise summary of what a hydrothermal vent is and why they are of interest in both geologic and biologic contexts. Most of the facts it states seem to be cited from reliable sources. There are a few statements that may benefit from a citation or two. The Lead discusses information that can be mostly found within the first 5 sections. However, it does not discuss much on the topics of Discovery and Exploration, Exploitation, and Conservation. The informational graphic on the right could improve on labeling. The average lay person may not realize it is a graphic organized by depth in the ocean.

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
The content appears to be cohesive and relevant to the main topic of Hydrothermal Vents. The citations for the article span a wide timeframe. Most of the fundamental material is cited to sources from the 70s to early 2000s. Some of the more recent citations (dated to within the last several years) appear to be related to current and future research. The section Conservation seems relatively scant compared to the other sections within the article. Given the depth of information within the preceding sections, it seems as though more thorough descriptions of current conservation efforts are needed. Some sections seemed a bit unbalanced in terms of amount of detail provided.

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 overall tone of the article appears to be neutral. For example, in the Hydrothermal Origins of Life section nowhere does it make concrete "this is how it happened" sort of statements. Most of them are of the "it has been suggested that..." or "some researchers have found..." variety. However, within the Exploitation and Conservation sections is where the tone strays ever so slightly from neutral. The mere title of the section Exploitation comes off with a negative connotation. However, as I am not familiar with deep sea mining terminology, I recognize that this may be a perfectly appropriate technical term for deep-sea mining processes. Even if it is a neutral, technical term perhaps a title such as Deep Sea Mining Efforts may appear more neutral than the the current one.

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?

Sources and references evaluation
The citations currently listed appear to be reliable and thorough. Most of them appear to be from peer-reviewed scientific articles. As mentioned before, the sources have a wide date range with current sources listed as appropriate. The links appear to be viable and current. Some sections, especially the Animal-Bacterial Symbiosis section, need more citations for the information that is presented.

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 presents well-written, clear material. Some of the sections, such as the Physical Properties section, are a bit technical but not overly so. There do not appear to be any glaring grammatical or spelling errors. Overall, the article is fairly well organized. It may have made sense to reorder some sections so that less technical, summary-type sections (Black and White Smokers and Biological Communities) were first then followed by the down-in-the-weeds sections. However, it seems to work as it is now.

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 figures and diagrams that are included appear to be cohesive with the content of each subsection. Some figures contain critical text that is far to small even when clicked on; however, those figures have sufficient, descriptive captions from the article. When clicked on, the images and figures provide appropriate citations/sources.

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
This article is part of 4 WikiProjects: Ecoregions, Geology, Volcanoes, and Limnology & Oceanography. Most of the conversations appear to be about scientific accuracy, citations, and on neutrality. It seems like this article has a relatively long history of these conversations and some continuing to present day. Most of the major issues posed were addressed or corrected; however, there seem to still be some underlying content/accuracy issues. The page is listed as Class-C, while useful to the average lay person it is still has substantial gaps in information, needs additional citations, and needs substantial cleanup.

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
While the article provides a good, basic overview it needs more information in some areas (and perhaps less in some). Some sections appear to be patchy in terms of general content and amount of detail provided. A couple sections also appear poorly written/cited. Overall, the article could use some fleshing out in certain sections and some clarity in others. However, for a reader who just wants a general overview of hydrothermal vents - the article does the job.

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: