User:Blizzardsnow7/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Energy planning

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Assigned by Professor.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

The Lead section does introduce the topic and briefly touch on the major sections that can be found within the page. It does not introduce information not found in the article and is not overly detailed. Overall, solid Lead section that I think will need little to no work. One thing I would do is if you are planning to add sections to the article then this info can be amended to this section to maintain the relevancy.

Content:

While the content is relevant, most of it is either historical or missing a proper date. Something that can definitely be done is adding updated 2021 information to this article. There is surely content that is "missing" as in more could be done to flesh out this article. For example, the Wiki Equity Gaps and addressing of topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics is something that could be added to this article.

Tone and Balance:

This article is neutral. When adding to this article consider looking at how the Nuclear Energy section was written. This piece mentions both the pros and cons and keeps everything very neutral in my opinion and would be a great model to follow for further work. I do not see any unbalanced weighting, biases, misrepresentation, or attempt to persuade the reader and again this balance is crucial to maintain when working on the article. Fringe viewpoints could be an area of improvement.

Sources and References:

There are a few places where information is not properly sourced. The places that are cited properly have current and thorough sources, all coming from the 2000's. There is a diverse spectrum of authors, maybe a larger focus on governmental data, and no marginalized individuals but I do not know how applicable that is in this instance. Better sources, or at least more up-to-date sources are available for the Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Production section. Additionally, Integrated Resource Planning can be updated because new plans have been put into place in more recent years. For example, including plan to include underrepresented groups not contributing to global emissions but suffering from the industrialization of first-world countries. Lastly, the Energy Planning Tools section could use some additional sources that give specifics instead of a broad definition of the idea. Links work.

Organization and Writing Quality:

I found the existing pieces of the article concise, no grammar issues, and well broken up into different sections and sub sections.

Images and Media:

There is only one figure, and it is in the Potential Energy Solutions section, and I think it is helpful for understanding the topic. It is properly captioned, cited and visually appealing. Adding more pictures and figures could definitely be something that could be done to improve the overall quality of the article.

Talk Page Discussion:

On the talk page it states that this article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Only one point mentioned and that is covering the discussion of energy policy being included in the article and gives an example on how to maybe go about this. More broad approach compared to our class discussions.

Overall Impressions:

The overall status of this article in my opinion is that while pretty substantial, there is definitely room for improvement. The current strengths are the Sustainable Energy Planning and Potential Energy Solutions sections. Improvement can be made with images, sources, variety, and applicability of content, and marginal inclusiveness. This article is pretty well-developed and just needs some work with cleaning existing pieces up and filling out the remaining gaps. I think the current state offers a solid starting point for moving forward.