User:Cbutron/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Environmental degradation

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose the article about Environmental Degradation because it relates to the study of Ecology. The topic of Environmental Degradation matters because it is about the destruction of the environment, which negatively impacts humans as well as all other beings on Earth. My preliminary impression of the article was that the article provided good background about the topic, but more information could be added to it.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section


 * The lead section includes an introductory sentence that describes the topic. However, it could be more concise because it includes two separate descriptions about what environmental degradation is.
 * The lead does not include a brief description about the article's major sections.
 * The lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * The lead section is overly detailed in a way that it almost repeats many points already made. The lead should be much more concise, and some information should be moved from the lead section to the other sections.

Content


 * The article's content is relevant to the topic.
 * The content is up to date with sources retrieved recently this year and from last year.
 * There is no content that is missing nor content that does not belong.
 * The article deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. It addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations, such as gender equality and the livelihood of women.

Tone and Balance


 * The article is neutral.
 * There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * There are no viewpoints that are over represented nor under represented.
 * There are no minority or fringe viewpoints described.
 * The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position.

Sources and References


 * The facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * The sources are thorough.
 * The sources are current.
 * The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * The sources from news websites could be replaced with better sources.

Organization and Writing Quality


 * The article is well written, but it could be more concise with the information it gives because it comes off a bit repetitive at times.
 * The article does not have any spelling errors, but there are a few grammatical errors.
 * The article could be better broken down into different sections so the article flows more clearly.

Images and Media


 * The article includes images that enhance understanding of the topic.
 * The images are well-captioned.
 * All of the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * The images are laid out in a visually appealing way.

Talk Page Discussion


 * There are no conversations shown in the Talk Page.
 * The article is rated a C. It is part of the WikiProject Science Policy.
 * The way Wikipedia discusses this topic differs from the way we discuss ecology topics in class because this article just lays out information that pertains to this one topic.

Overall Impressions


 * The article's overall status is average. The article was not bad, but it could be improved.
 * The article's strengths are that it lays out various topics that relates to the article. It is very informative.
 * The article can be improved by adding more information and changing up the sectioning of the article so it flows better for the readers.
 * I would say that the article is moderately underdeveloped. It lays a good foundation of information that could be improved upon further.