User:Bcrawf123/Evaluate an Article

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the first sentence gives the location of the preserve, its size, and the controlling body in charge of it.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead is very short and doesn't explicitly describe the articles main sections. However, everything in the lead is explained further in the article.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * Everything in the lead is in the article, so there is no extra information.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Overall, the lead is very concise and to the point. The only possible area where there is too much detail is when it lists out the various types of vegetation in the park.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The article's content is all relative to the topic of Black Diamond Mines and its history. There is not really any superfluous information, however, the article seems a little too history focused.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The sources for the content were almost all written within the last 10 to 15 years, with many being written within the last five years. It has been months since the article was last edited, so it would be good to include some newer information.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Most of the content in the article focuses on the history of the park itself. While all this information is relevant to the article, I feel there should be more natural history information included.  The article is about the Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and should thus include more information about the ecology and geology of the preserve.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * As of now, the article does not deal with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps. However, since the park is located in the bay area, it would be worthwhile to research the history of the natives that may have occupied the land.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is written in a very neutral tone and it doesn't seem to be pushing for one particular viewpoint.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Overall, there are almost no claims that appear to be biased towards a particular viewpoint. The only possible point of contention in the article is when it mentions the legends of ghosts being seen in the park.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * One could say that the primary viewpoint for this article is that of western settlers. The articles focuses on the history of the mining towns, cemeteries, and mines on the land, without addressing possible displacement of native peoples.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Overall, there are very few fringe viewpoints in this article, it basically just explains the non-controversial history of the park. However, as mentioned earlier, the inclusion of the statement about ghost sightings should be labeled as fringe.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * There does not seem to be any real persuasion taking place in the article.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Some of the gaps between the citations seem a little large, so not all facts seem to be attributed directly to a source. In the "recreation" section, there are a lot of animals and plants listed as species found in the park, but there is no source link.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Many of the sources come from news articles or other websites that don't seem very reputable. The sources used focus extensively on the history of the park, and not so much on the natural history.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The majority of the articles were written within the last 10 years, with many being even more current. Therefore, the sources are mostly current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources all have different authors, but there seems to be a lack of marginalized authors. I am going to try to research native perspectives on the park land.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Based on my preliminary research, I have found multiple peer-reviewed articles that could be used in place of the various news articles currently utilized.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Most of the links work, and for the ones that don't, there is an updated archival link that works.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is easy to read and mostly concise. There are some sentences in the history section that seem to ramble on with lists of things such as locations.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There aren't any major grammatical or spelling errors, but there are sentences that should be reworded to cut down on length.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * For the most part, the article is well-organized, especially in the history section. However, I don't agree with the organization of the "Recreation" section.  Instead of listing the things to do in the park, this section focuses mostly on the plants and animals found in the park.  There should be a natural history section.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The images included align directly with the information that is mentioned in the article. They are very helpful in visualizing the locations within the park that are being discussed.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * All the images except the very first one have captions. The captions on the images do well at concisely explaining what is going on in the image.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * All the images on the page are photos taken by the editors personally, and they do adhere to the copyright regulations
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There is a fairly consistent theme of setting the photos on the right side of the page. I feel it would be best to maintain this consistently throughout the article, so I recommend moving the image of the hazel-atlas mine and the coal field marker to the right side.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is currently no discussion going on in the talk section.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article has a C-class rating and is a part of multiple WikiProjects. These include "California/San Francisco Bay Area," "National Register of Historic Places," and "Protected areas"
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article has a mid to low tier status since it is such a niche subject. Considering it is a local park, not a lot of people outside of the Bay Area likely care about it.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * I would say that the article's main strength is its very thorough explanation of the history of the park. The images included in the history section are also very helpful for understanding the places being talked about.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article really needs a separate natural history section that could include information about species of plants and animals in the park, as well as information on how these dominant populations have changed over time (ie dominant grasses). The geology of the park could also be included in this section.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would rate the completeness of the article as under-developed to mid-tier developed. There is a wealth of historical information, but not much beyond that.  There is a lot of space to include more information.