User:Antracy20/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) Harmful algal bloom
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I am interested in Harmful Algae Blooms

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
This article's lead talks provides a brief summary about the content of the article and touches upon most of the points of the article. However, it does not mention the potential remedies section.

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 is relevant, but may not be up to date. There should be some more information on the "red tides" caused by dinoflagellates and about the specific species that produce the toxic chemicals in the blooms. In addition, it may be helpful to have links to more of the common toxins that the species produce and their health impacts. The article mentions microsystins saying that it is a neurotoxin, but there are many more toxins that can be produced with different effects on different parts of the body.

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 tone is neutral and informative throughout the piece. There is a lot of information on the effects on humans and the article could benefit from more information on the ecological drivers behind the blooms and the effects on the ecosystem. There is a lot more in depth scientific information out there that could give a reader a more specific knowledge of the micro scale changes to the ecosystem in addition to the macro scale effects.

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
A few of the sources should be updated as the reach back a ways, but the information is still relevant. If there could be up to date on recent blooms and recent papers on HABs that would be helpful.

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
There are some sub sections that should be broken up into more sections, but overall there are a logical sub headings that flow together.

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 pictures are enough to underscore the destruction and importance of understanding the blooms and their impacts.

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 overall debate is that some authors want to merge the article with Red Tides and others don't. This article is rated as high priority in some wiki projects and mid priority and other wiki projects. The debate around it seems to focus on whether the topic should be more accessible to the public or give more scientific information to the public. This is an interesting debate because the clarity of the page depends on your prior knowledge and scientific background. It is a difficult topic to remedy.

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
There could be more information on the specific scientific processes behind the blooms, but it is a good overall representation of the different aspects of HABs and their effects on wildlife and humans.

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: