User:Claricef/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: Particulate pollution
 * I chose this article because I am interested in the environment and there are changes that can be made.

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
There is a strong lead that gives an overview of what the article will cover and includes the major sections. No irrelevant information is present, and the lead is clear and to the point.

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
All of the content is relevant and up-to-date, as it was most recently edited October 22, 2019. In one section, more sources are needed.

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 article is neutral. All categories are thoroughly and evenly covered.

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
All facts are sourced. However, more links can be made to other Wikipedia pages. The most recent source is from 2015, so some updates probably need to be made. The article is overeall very thorough and reflective of the topic.

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
The organization is neat and well-done. Few to no grammatical errors are present, and the article is organized well.

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
Images are engaging and relevant to the topic. However, more could be present as there are is only and it gives a limited viewpoint. The image is well-captioned and give context as to why it's relevant and it follows wikipedia's regulations..

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
There was only one person to comment. However, they had a large contribution and well thought out suggestion to add additional sources to the bibliography. This person also pointed out that the bulk of the article was primarily based on only one source, and the suggestion to add more would make it more viable and also "could lead to the discovery of more information". Finally, this person praised the article's organization and format.

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
The article, overall, had an engaging flow and strong information along with claims. The article covers all aspects of the topic. The article has also been used in at least 3 scholarly assignments and WikiProjects, include Environmental, Meteorology, Physics, and Chemistry. The article is also well-developed, but as shown above, could use some more sources to make the research diversified and not biased from one source.

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: