User:Bio10bspk/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)Roof garden
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because I followed the links based on my interests. I began with social sciences, to urban planning, to urban agriculture, to something I had learned about, which was rooftop gardens.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes: "A roof garden is a garden on the roof of a building."
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes:
 * 1History
 * 2Environmental impact
 * 3Urban agriculture
 * 4Importance to urban planning
 * 5Science of gardening
 * 6In popular culture
 * 7Gallery
 * 8See also
 * 9References
 * 10External links
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes: It has a reference to the benefit of rooftop gardens as habitat corridors for wildlife. This is not mentioned in the article, but is linked at the bottom as a "see also" resource.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Yes, it is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. All of the sections are related to the topic and are alluded to in the lead.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * It could use updating. The most recent referenced source is from 5 years ago.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think all of the main relevant content is present, i.e. benefit to humans and urban environments. There is not any information that does not belong.

Content evaluation
The overall content evaluation is that the content is relevant and not superfluous. The references could be updated.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, overall the article is neutral. I found at least one sentence that could be edited without the word "seriously" and without an inference made by the author. "Available gardening areas in cities are often seriously lacking, which is likely the key impetus for many roof gardens."
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article does not include any opposing viewpoints to the value of rooftop gardens.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Again, the article does not include any opposing viewpoints to the value of rooftop gardens.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I do not think the article itself tries to make a case, I think the neutrally presented information makes the case for rooftop gardens by itself.

Tone and balance evaluation
The overall tone is neutral. The article could include criticism of rooftop gardens.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The majority of the references are published articles, from textbooks, newspapers, or university research. Some sources are difficult to verify because they are from books that cannot be accessed online.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I think the sources are well-rounded and mostly academic or reliable. They are sources on a variety of topics related to the main topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The most recent source is from 5 years ago and the oldest source is from 1999. I think the sources could be refreshed.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, they work.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources contain some sources that cannot be verified. The sources are not mostly recent. Some of the online sources could be replaced with more current academic research or more reputable newspaper articles or journals.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is very easy to read while also conveying all the information.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No errors noted.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, each section is titled, organized, and only has content relevant to that section.

Organization evaluation
The article is overall very well organized and easy to follow.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The pictures enhance the understanding of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes they are captioned clearly and concisely.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I checked all the images and they are either licenses properly, part of public domain, or uploaded by users.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes. They are out of the way of the text and inform without interfering.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are people contributing additional links for some underrepresented topics. For example, I mentioned that wildlife corridors are mentioned in the lead but not in the article. Someone has contributed a source that provides an example of wildlife corridor. It is not included in the article yet.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is part of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening. It is rated "start-class" and "mid-importance."
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It did not get into the mechanism of cooling or link to wiki articles about it.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The overall status is that is it is starting out and in need of editing and contributions.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It covers a wide variety of relevant content.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Each section of relevant content can be stronger and more detailed. The sources can be more relevant too.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would assess it as "developing."

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: