User:Cconniff13/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
1998 Sydney water crisis (1998 Sydney water crisis)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I choose this article because it was a C-grade article that I assumed needed some work done. It covers a topic concerning water, which is the study of our class, and also looks at the media reporting and fact-based information we have been examining. This article matters because it covers a water crisis that occurred in Sydney and because it shows the dangers of misinformation in the media. I thought the article had some good information, but was disorganized in its presentation making it difficult to read the article and fully grasp the situation.

Evaluate the article
Lead

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

- Yes

Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

-No

Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)

- Yes

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

- Overly detailed, includes many specifics that should be put in content not lead.

Content

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

-Yes

Is the content up to date?

-Yes, I believe that it is. The article is about an isolated event so all of the relevant information occurred during a short timespan and as such there is not more relevant information that needs to be included.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

-Some of the information in the background section seems like it does not belong, especially because it is never really attached to the water crisis that occurred. The resolution to water crisis seems like it is missing. The article says what date the water was declared safe again, but not what tests were done to determine that.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

The articles doesn't address any topics related to historically underrepresented populations. Presumably, lower income populations would be more at risk during a water crisis, but the article doesn't mention anything related to that.

Tone and Balance

Is the article from a neutral point of view?

-Yes.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

-No.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

-The viewpoint of the Australian Water Technologies who made the exaggerated claims about the parasites in the water is not explained.

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

-There are not really any minority viewpoints described in the article.

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

-I think you could save overall the article attempts to persuade the reader to view the water crisis as more of a hoax created by the Australian Water Technologies, rather than a series health threat. The article in some ways works to make the company and by association Sydney Water seem unreliable and unsafe.

Sources and References

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

-It does not seem like all of the facts are backed by a reliable source. There are a few general citations used for the article that could have provided some of the information, but there are facts, especially in the "Timeline of Event" section that have no source so it is difficult to know where they come from.

Are the sources thorough - i.e., Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

-Some of the articles do have information that is on the article, but some do not. The second citation appears to be a link about a movie, it does not seem to include any relevant information to the article.

Are the sources current?

-The sources are mainly surrounding the year the crisis happened. Overall the seem current enough to me.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

-The sources are all written by different organizations and authors. I do not believe that historically marginalized individuals were included.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

-I think the official reports about the water systems in Sydney and the crisis were the best sources that could be used. I think the additional courses that were used were not that great and should be replaced with sources from more reputable websites and be peer-reviewed.

Check a few links. Do they work?

-Yes the links work.

Organization and Writing Quality

Is the article well-written - i.e., Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

-I would say overall the article is not poorly written but still has some room for improvement. Some of the sections are not concise or clear, but the overall article gets the message across and was easy enough to read.

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

-I did not catch any grammatical errors.

Is the article well-organized - i.e., broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

-The article is not organized that well. The lead was not well organized and did not appropriately address the article. The "Background" section overall seemed a little disjointed and the "Timeline of event" section could use a little reworking to make it more digestible to readers.

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

-No

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 is only one image in the top right section.

Talk Page Discussion

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

- There are a few questions/comments listed on the talk page, but there is not any dialogue back and forth or responses.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

-The article is rated C-class. Yes, it is part of the Australia, Medicine, International development, Sanitation, Water, Environment, and Disaster management WikiProjects.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

-We have not discussed this particularly topic in class, but it does mirror themes of fact checking and examining the narrative that the media controls.

Overall Impressions

What is the article's overall status?

- Overall, I did not think the article was that reliable or well done. Most of the pertinent information to the topic is included in the article, but it is disorganized and confused with other topics.

What are the article's strengths?

-The article's strengths are that it gives the important information in concise statements. The articles does have a few good sources and is divided into sections that makes it easier to read.

How can the article be improved?

-All of the sources used need to be checked and new ones need to be obtained. The flow of the article needs to be rearranged and extra unneeded information needs to be removed. More divine/opposing viewpoints need to be added to show a broader coverage of the issue.

How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e., Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

-I think the information about the article is there, but it is not developed enough and needs polishing and synthesizing into to read more cohesively.

Cconniff13 (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)