User:Cameronlg/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: Environmental impact of nuclear power
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have always been interested in climate abatement, and it is clear that the inefficiencies of both solar and wind will require at least one other option to attain clean energy in order to prevent the 2 degree temperature increase that will trigger a series of expensive, destructive and irreversible damage to the Earth. Its cost benefit analysis would be a good one to do later in order to determine whether it is worth it, but for the moment I would like to know the exact potential impact on the Earth because of nuclear power.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Generally, yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, but it does capture the general idea. It leaves out quite a few sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Almost underly detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Generally, yes. It is mostly information from the early 2010's.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There seems to be a lot of information of how bad nuclear power can be, and doesn't attempt to explain the intricacies of the process nor the efficiency of Nuclear reactors.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * No, I think it is fairly anti-nuclear power or at least doesn't give enough balanced examples.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * More than half of the article is detailed accounts of nuclear disasters.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Definitely a viewpoint that sees nuclear power as something to be afraid of as well as something that is fixed in its traits and unfixable in the future.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I don't think it attempts to, but it has the effect of persuading readers just because it doesnt have enough information regarding why nuclear power is also good.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Not all facts, there are some statements that do not have a citation and are someone elses idea.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Generally, but any briefs and support of scientists are largely left out.
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Some parts are overly simplistic and some are overly technical and difficult to understand. The majority of the article is easy to read, though
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Occasional grammar errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Generally.
 * 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?
 * There could be more and they could have better placement

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Mostly issues of clarification and over-generalizations, as well as needing more information. One is pushing heavily to move away from "nuclear industry talking points," which feels slightly biased.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Rate: B-Class, mid importance
 * WikiProjects: Environment, Energy, Physics
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We havent yet talked about energy policy

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * ? Unsure of what this means
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is very thorough on the history of nuclear power in the world, as well as reasons to be cautious.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It should also look at how nuclear power has changed as well as leading causes for malfunction. It should also be discussing the threat of climate change and how nuclear efficiencies could help us achieve the under 2 degree goal.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It's slightly underdeveloped.

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: Talk:Environmental impact of nuclear power