User:Carmen.ram/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: Rock cycle
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * It was one of the options under Biogeochemical Processes, and I figured it wouldn't have been heavily evaluated.

Lead

 * Guiding question


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it does this.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead generally says what it could talk about, but it doesn't give an explicit description of the sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the example given about basalt, an igneous rock, is not talked about later in the page.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the article is relevant.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Based on the edit history, yes because it has been consistently reviewed recently. It also has information that is not necessarily going to change frequently from year to year. However, all of the sources used are 15 years or older, so some more recent sources could be used.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, the content is all related to the topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, the article does imply that things had "profound effects" on interpretation, but does so in a neutral and academic way.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there are not.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, the article is very balanced.
 * 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? No, there are very large stretches of text throughout the page without any citation. The large majority of the facts given are not cited, and there are only 3 sources in total.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Not really, like I said, there are only 3. They are all relevant, though.
 * Are the sources current? I'm not sure on how current that rock cycle research needs to be, but in general scientific terms, the sources are not. The newest one is 15 years old, and the oldest one is 24 years old.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Generally. It is sometimes daunting to see a wall of text, but if I were interested in the rock cycle or looking for information, it would be clear and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I could see.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is very clear what sections are defined.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I would assume so, none looked as if they had a copyright watermark.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, they are all lined up on the right side, and they're in close proximity to what they are describing.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? They are generally talking about how to improve the content of the article, but mostly about graphics within the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is part of WikiProject Geology and WikiProject Mining, and is rated C-Class in both.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It needs work and updating for sure, but the general content is strong.
 * What are the article's strengths? Easy to follow, has informative content.
 * How can the article be improved? Needs more resources and more updated pictures.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say it is 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: