User:Blaine717/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): Meteorology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I am interested in the topic and can be related to the environment aspect in my Sociology and the Environment course.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. a little lengthy but it is a big topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it has a table of contents.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise considering the topic.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, it contains a history section, things related to the topic and who evaluates the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, last edited September 16, 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, not from what I can tell.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes I do not see any biases
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Nuclear Meteorology does not have a lot of information on it, so it seems to be underrepresented..
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, seemingly to be cited at the bottom.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, under the section titled Further Reading
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? I selected a few and most worked, there was one source under the referenced that said page not available.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I see
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes and follows the table of contents.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, there are a least 10 images on the page for visuals.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes and placed in different parts of the page for a more visually appealing look.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Regarding basic edits and corrections and introducing new topics.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It is more so a matter of fact perspective.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It is rated as a B-Class
 * What are the article's strengths? The information is organized well and looks to be cited properly.
 * How can the article be improved? Elaborating on certain topics.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is well-developed.

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: