User:Cation2020/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: Mineral (nutrient)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: On the topic of inorganic chemistry, I have decided to evaluate an article on minerals as nutrients. I felt that this article would contribute to my understanding of how minerals contribute to health of different organisms.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The Lead sentence is concise, clear, and focused. General information as well as contextualization of minerals alongside other essential nutrients is informative. There is no overview of the article's main sections in paragraph form; however, there is a Contents key that lays out and links to the sections. Information included in the Lead is addressed throughout the article. All sections listed in the contents are present in the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
The provided content is relevant and informative, but seems incomplete. Some content appears to be up-to-date; however, several sources date back to more than 10 years ago. While still important, the "Mineral ecology" section could be complimented by another section, perhaps on mineral abundance or a section expanding on the mineral nutrient cycle. Other sections to enhance understanding of minerals as nutrients would also add to the usefulness of the article. Since the article is a part of WikiProject Medicine, a section expanding on minerals and medicine would be helpful.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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 overall tone of the article is neutral and there are no apparent heavily biased claims. While mentioning uncertainties, the article is careful to indicate where more research in needed. Additionally, diverging opinions are reported in a neutral tone. The "Blood concentrations of minerals" and "Mineral ecology" sections could use more content to balance the article. Lastly, the article does not appear to attempt to persuade the reader in favor of a certain position.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
Sources appear credible as they include academic journals, textbooks, and reputable organizations like the US Department of Agriculture. However, the source list could be broadened to include more recent data from around the world in addition to the US, Japan, and the European Union. Some facts still require further support with secondary sources. Reference to more secondary sources on trace minerals, for example, might be informative. So far, the links that I have checked work properly. Some references are more recent that others, as only some references were published in the last 5 years.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
For the most part, writing style is clear, concise, and easy to read. There do not appear to be any grammatical errors. Some wording is a bit awkward and could be refined for clarity. The article is well organized but could use smoother transitions, especially for the "Mineral ecology" section that seems out-of-place.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
Captions require more detail. The "Nutritional elements in the periodic table" figure is neat, visually appealing, and clear to understand. The legend below this figure is well-structured; however additional details and explanation would be helpful for additional clarity. Also, information for the figure in the "Blood concentrations of minerals" section might also be helpful for readers. The figure is a bit difficult to understand and the lines in the background make the writing difficult to see.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The article is a part of multiple WikiProjects and is rated C-class across each project, categorized under C-Class chemical elements articles. Importance of the article varies among the projects from mid-importance to top-importance. The talk page addresses imbalance of the sections as well as old threads that need to be updated. There is also a discussion on the title of the article that includes a comment on the difficulty of finding an appropriate name that is compatible with all of the article's designated WikiProjects. In the end, the current title "Mineral (nutrient)" was chosen. To name a few, other small edits include removal of arsenic, supported by a reference, clarifications on "NE" and other comments on content. The way Wikipedia discusses this topic does not seem to deviate from my expectations of the talk page, based upon the training modules.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is C-class, meaning that the article requires further development and refinement. The article has a strong skeleton and connectivity between topics relation to minerals in human diet. For improvement, more relevant content is required and the current content needs to be edited for clarity and flow to provide a more in-depth understanding of minerals for nutrition. Text explaining or complementing the images would also contribute to better organization and clarity. Currently, the article seems incomplete. Some sections are more developed than others; however, all sections could be improved.

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: