User:Davidbbell3/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Aggradation

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is relevant to my degree in geology. It is an important concept. My preliminary impression is that this article is poorly sourced.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

Yes, the lead includes a solid introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article’s topic. The lead does not include a brief description of the article’s major sections, as there are no major sections – only three paragraphs. The lead does not include information that is not present in the article nor is it overly detailed.

Content

The content covered in this article is relevant, accurate, and up to date. There is a great deal of information missing. The article could be expanded to elaborate on more causes of aggradation. There is no mention of how aggradation is represented in a stratigraphic column, or how to identify aggradation in a given outcropping of rock. There is also no mention of coastal aggradation, and how it differs from channel aggradation. There is also no mention about what geologists don’t know about aggradation and what research is currently being done. This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

This article has a strong sense of tone and balance. It is written from a neutral point of view, and makes no claims biased towards a particular person. No viewpoints are under or overrepresented. There is no persuasion towards a particular view.

Sources and References

Only one fact in this article is supported by a source of information. All other claims are unsourced. The one source is a BBC article, which may not be considered reliable as popular news outlets often misinterpreted scientific findings. There are better sources available, as many journals report on sedimentology, and many of the findings are connected to aggradation. Geology textbooks would also be an appropriate secondary source of information.

Organization and Writing Quality

This article is well-written and concise; it has a nice flow to it. There are no grammatical or spelling errors. The article is not broken down into sections, but this is due to the fact that it is only four paragraphs long. The image that accompanies this article, while somewhat confusing, adheres to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations and is presented in a visually appealing way.

Talk Page Discussion

Not a lot of conversations are going on behind the scenes on this article, only two posts exist on the talks page, both indicating that external links have been modified. This article is part of a WikiProject, Geology, which ranks the article as “Start Class” and “Mid-importance”. It is listed as a level 5 vital article. The way Wikipedia discusses this topic doesn’t differ much from the way we’ve discussed it in class.

Overall Impressions

The article’s status is start, meaning there’s lots of work to be done on it. The article’s strengths are that it is very succinct and has a very strong and accurate opening paragraph. The article can be improved through proper sourcing, more figures, more examples and more detailed explanations of the geologic processes. I would assess this article as underdeveloped – its off to a good start but needs some work.