User:Bryan O'Donnell/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: Atmospheric science
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.: I have some educational background on this subject and it interests me as it affects so many things in daily life.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead sentence is a bit broad but is understandable for such a multifaceted subject. The lead also has a promptly positioned contents section that clearly shows what to expect in this article. The topical information presented in the lead are further discussed in the article and those that are not have links to their corresponding Wikipedia articles such as what Earth's atmosphere is. Overall the lead in on this article is concise and to the point.


 * 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

All information presented in the article seems to be strictly on topic, directly relating to the various factors that control different atmospheric sciences: chemistry, physics, climatology, and even sections about the atmosphere of other planets. I can see from the talk section and references section of this article that it is fairly well up to date, having been updated as recently as the end of 2019. This is true especially considering that although the atmosphere is always in flux, the processes that control it remain the same.


 * 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?

Content evaluation
Despite the brevity of this article I feel that it does a good job redirecting readers to more specific information beneath the banner of atmospheric science which, the reader may need to take a deeper look into.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

This article is neutral, all points are made for perspective gaining/ educational purposes which do not support any one individual or organization beyond governmental bodies such as NOAA. All topics seem to be equally represented within the article with no one section having more weight than the others. From what I can tell there is no persuasion in this article but merely serves as an academic tool.


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone seems appropriate and doesn't pander to any one audience, giving descriptions or links to any subject matter that a reader may not fully understand yet.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * It would appear that all references (of which there are 12) seem to have a reliable source, either coming directly from university pages (like Oxford University), government research bodies (such as NASA), or well respected science journals (such as Nature). Although notably one source (#7) seems out of place compared to the others, being that it is a press released article. However, even though there is no link to the the page it is still from a University, giving validity to it. All links work and are relatively up to date when considering the time scales on which atmospheric processes occur.


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

In my opinion the article itself is very well written, I can detect no grammatical errors and there is a section for all the major topics listed. As far as easy to read though I imagine that the average reader would need to search for several definitions before fully comprehending the whole article. For example I myself didn't know what "photochemical smog" was or how it affects the overall chemistry of the atmosphere.


 * 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 article makes good use of media, giving enough to convey certain concepts but not too many as to drown the reader with intricate diagrams or too many pictures of clouds. All four images are public domain and therefore complies with the Wikipedia copyright regulations.


 * 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 is actually a part of two different WikiProjects: Meteorology and Physics rated top-importance and high-importance respectively.


 * 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
 * This article has been routinely edited since early 2003. I would say that this article is strong because it serves as a research navigation tool, meaning that if you're looking for specific information about atmospheric sciences than this article will get you pointed in the right direction. I believe this article could be improved by the use of more synonyms for people who aren't as scientifically inclined and may not be used to this type of article and its scientific tone. I would say that this article is well-developed despite its length, as I mentioned before I believe it serves the role of a research directory. You wouldn't come here specifically if you wanted to find out exactly how long carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere once released however, it will point you the right way to find that information.

As of now this article is


 * 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: