User:Cushing, D.W/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
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I have chosen to evaluate this article because I find it relevant to the course in contextualizing an interdisiplanary approach of the earth sciences in understanding the Earth and its systems.

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 does include a clear and concise description of the article's topic. In effect, it has summarized that Environmental science is interdisciplinary, includes approaches to gathering and analyzing information of the physical environment from not just geology, but fields as biology, zoology, geography etc. etc. Furthermore, it includes brief mention of the history and origins of Environmental science during the Enlightenment period from the fields of natural history and medicine.

The lead does provide a brief description of the article's four major sections (i.e. as stipulating the involvement and crossover of the atmospheric sciences, ecology, environmental chemistry, and the geosciences in Environmental science).

The lead does include information not present in the article, such as linking reasons for the emergence of the discipline to social-environmental issues which emerged in the late 1960 and 1970s.

For this evaluation, I believe the Lead, if determined correctly takes up four paragraphs, explores subject matter that could be defined in subsequent sections rather than in the Lead section, and so is too extensive for being either brief or concise.

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 article's content is generally relevant to the topic. However, one section (titled: Regulations driving the studies) seems out of place by exploring other aspects which could be developed in a subsequent article and fails to really highlight the topic in the general sense.

The content may require being updated. The newest citation is ten years old (2010).

As described in the previous section, the sub section on "Regulations Driving the Studies" seems out of place and adds more information than I believe is necessary.

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 fairly neutral, such as not promoting a single viewpoint or ideology or prospective party.

No apparent claims appear to be made which are heavily biased toward a particular position.

As can be defined, no there are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresent.

The article does appear to attempt to persuade the reader in explicit language to find favour in the position that the topic is very relevant for reasons of its social and scientific nature.

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
Not all the facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source.

The sources are not thorough, do not reflect the available literature, and are limited in application (only one noted academic source on the topic). For example, one cited piece of information was taken from another wikipedia page.

The sources are not current. The most recent is dated to 2010.

The links work.

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 article is semi concise and clear. However, though the Lead is well defined the following work does not hold the same pace or rhythm.

The article has very few to no grammatical or spelling errors.

The article can be better organized, the Lead and body do not flow well and could use revision. For example, the sections are difficult to find within the Lead.

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
The article does include adequate images that enhance understanding of the topic. That is, each subsection has a visually descriptive image.

Yes, the images are well captioned (describe the scene).

No, one of the six images fails to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations (e.g., CC BY-SA 4.0).

The images are laid out in a fairly appealing fashion, although they are somewhat random in their placement within the article.

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
Promotion of environmental awareness and taking general action on environmental issues seems to be a general undercurrent represented by this topic.

The article is rated as "C-class". It is a part of two WikiProjects: Environment, and Technology.

The page defines and explores in greater detail the interdiciplinary approaches and cross compatibility of the earth sciences with the other sciences.

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
C-rank.

The article's strengths are good coverage of the topic, content, history, and application.

More and updated sources, and fine-tuning of the formatting, and removal of the copyrighted image.

In my estimation, the article Environmental science is underdeveloped, but not requiring great or extensive revision.

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: