User:Cassidar/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: Lake Wallenpaupack
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This is close to the lakes I worked on in my lab and I wanted to read more about it

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it explains that it is a reservoir and where it is
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, it describes where the lake is, how big it is, how and why it was created, and what it is known for today
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The only info in the lead that isn't in the article is the size of it, but that doesn't really need to be restated
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * it has some good details but it is still concise. If all I read was the lead, I would know enough

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the article does a good job talking about its history, hydrology, recreational uses, etc.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The latest content is from the ownership change in 2015, so there is probably more that can be written about now
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Some of the content could be moved into different sections (where the lake drains and the specifications of the pipe doesn't need to be in the history section
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article only presents the facts and no opinions about them (ex doesn't say the Wally Lake festival is fun or something)
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * no
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no, there's nothing to persuade about

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Most of them are, some aren't (ex. in the popular culture section it says that the lake is featured in a book but this book is not cited)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There are probably a lot more sources about the water ecology of the lake since this lake is heavily studied
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes, all of the sources except for some used in the history section are from the last 15 years, most of them within the last 5
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes there are no repeats in authors
 * 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?
 * Yes, it reads well and does not have any extra fluff
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes, though some of the sections could be moved around to make the flow better (hydrology and climate closer to ecology, recreation shouldn't separate them)

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes there are lots of pictures that show a variety of important parts of the lake
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * the images are captioned in a very descriptive manner, but there's no source so I don't know where these images came from
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I can't be sure since there are no sources for the images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * They're fine, they're just all in a line

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Conversations about what to add (ie should the Office episode be mentioned), links that need to be fixed, where more information needs to be added
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * it is rated as a start and is in the Lakes project
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It's interesting that it is rated as a low importance lake article, because from my perspective it is an important lake, but this shows that people's biases are not always universal, and in the grand scheme of things this article is not very important

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is rated as a start and could be added to to improve
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article brings up a lot of important topics relevant to the lake like recreation, some science, etc.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More information can be added to the science sections, especially in the ecology areas, and the flow of the article can be improved
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is fine, but it could be developed further through the improvements listed above. I don't think it is stressed enough how important this lake is to the science and economy of the region

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: