User:Brownem5/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.


 * Stream restoration
 * I chose this article to evaluate because I think that stream restoration has been growing in importance over the last few years. I also have an interest in the topic and wanted to learn about it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * The article has a good Lead. It includes an introductory sentence that defines and describes the topic of the article. The Lead provides a brief description of the sections, such as form-based restoration and process-based restoration. However, while describing the sections, it leaves room for further explanations later in the article. The Lead is not overly long and provides a good outline for how the rest of the article will look like.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic and follows a well-organized outline. The content also looks at multiple aspects of the topic, such as legislation, and does not focus on one part. While some sections could use more information, overall it all belongs and provides a better understanding of the topic. The article also seems fairly up-to date.


 * 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * The article seems to remain neutral on the different positions in the article. While there is more information about form-based restoration, it does not make it seem like it is any better than process-based restoration. The article provides shortcoming and effectiveness of stream restoration while representing the strengths as well.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * The sources of this article seems to be good and everything that should be cited is cited. The sources are from good articles and clicking the links easily brought me to what was used.


 * 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * This article was well-written and organized. The article went from a broad Lead into more specifics and then back into the broad sense of effectiveness and legislation. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors. Each section was broken off into subsections that helped with the flow of the article.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * The images that the article has would be somewhat pointless if they did not have a caption. However, each image has a well-written caption that further enhances the understanding of the topic. I do think that the article could have used more pictures and diagrams to help with the understanding of a few sections. The images are also presented in an organized manner and follow with the organization of the article.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * This article did not have many conversations in the talk page. One of the comments was to merge this article with an article of a similar topic, river reclamation, that was just a different name. They ended up merging the two articles. The second comment was asking about adding the distinction between the form and process-bases restoration, which looks like was added into the article. This article is a part of a handful of WikiProjects including: Environment, Limnology and Oceanography, Rivers, Ecology and Civil engineering.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * I would say that this is a well-developed article. It is really organized and discuss many aspects. I cannot think of any ways at which this article can be improved.


 * 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?

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: