User:Clermonk/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: Environmental science
 * I thought this was a good article to evaluate because it has enough information to critique and this subject was something I already had some background in.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The Lead includes a good introductory sentence that is concise but still clearly describes the topic. In the Lead, there is a brief description of some of the article's subsections. Some subsections are not mentioned, and the ones that are mentioned are only briefly touched upon. The Lead is slightly overly detailed and does include some information that is not included in the article, specifically the history of environmental science. This information would be better if it were in its own section in the article.


 * 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? Sort of. The Lead does not specifically mention the subsections of the paper but it does touch on some of them.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is slightly overly detailed. It would be better if some of the information, specifically on the history of environmental science, was included in its own subsection in the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article's content is based off of resources that are slightly old, but I believe all of the information is still up-to-date and relevant to the article. I do not believe that the article is missing any content, and there is no content that does not belong.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? The articles sources are slightly dated, but I think all of the information is still up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't believe so.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is very neutral and does not show any biases. No viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented, and the reader is not being persuaded in favor of a position.


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * 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

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

All facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information, and all of the sources are thorough. Although the sources are not current, the links for them still work.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? No
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is clear and easy to read. It may be slightly too concise and lacking detail. There were no grammatical or spelling errors that I noticed. The article was extremely well-organized.


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

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

This article could include more images that enhance the understanding of the topic. Many of the images show space-view pictures of the Earth and others show pictures of different types of environments. Some pictures are well-captioned, while others just have a brief description. More well-captioned images of notable environmental scientists or environmental science studies would enhance this article. Otherwise, the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, and they are laid out in a visually appealing way.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? It could include more. The article only showcases pictures that make the article look prettier but don't actually contribute to the information.
 * Are images well-captioned? A couple of the images are well-captioned, but most are only minimally captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

This talk page for this article has a lot of back and forth about whether the article is politically influenced or not. The article is rated C-class and is part of WikiProject Environment, WikiProject Technology, and WikiProject Science. In class, we've talked about environmental science in relation to the deep sea and how human activities such as deep sea mining can harm the ocean and environment.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? People are conflicted about whether this article takes a political standpoint.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated C-class. It is part of WikiProject Environment, WikiProject Technology, and WikiProject Science.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We've focused more on how environmental science could be used to evaluate deep sea mining and other deep sea activities that could be potentially harmful to the environment.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

This article was not given an official status from Wikipedia other than C-class. The strengths of this article lie in its organization. The writers broke down environmental science into subcategories. The weakness of this article lies in its lack of detail. Environmental science is such a large field, I am certain more details could have been written about it. Overall, this article is underdeveloped.


 * What is the article's overall status? The article was not given an official status from Wikipedia.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article breaks down environmental science into main categories, which I like.
 * How can the article be improved? The article could use some more detail in almost every category.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say this article is underdeveloped because environmental science is a very broad field and this article seems to only be dipping into the huge pool of information.

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: