User:Demynesmith/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Talk:Pollution

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it's the basis of this entire class. It's important to have a basic understanding of what pollution is in order to know how to stop it and how to take proactive measures to keep a healthy environment. This article provides that elementary understanding for everyday people.

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?
 * Not really. It mostly just mentioned the types of pollution, the sources, and some statistical effects.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise but still gives a good overview

CONTENT


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * yes, with the last update being only 5 days ago
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I felt like the short sections on crime, school outcomes, and worker productivity were a little random. Maybe they would work if there was a little more information.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * From my understanding nothing is being misrepresented or underrepresented. Pollution doesn't discriminate

TONE


 * Is the article neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no, the article did call out some companies by name but the information was fact based
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * not from my knowledge
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * I'm not entirely sure different perspectives are applicable sense this is purely factual
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

SOURCES


 * 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?
 * yes, in the sense that they are still true, but not really regarding years published
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * yes
 * 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 that the sources are good but considering how often new information that was previously unknown is published, it would be nice to see some more sources from this year
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

ORGANIZATION


 * 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

MEDIA


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * some are a little vague but they do not necessarily need to go into more detail
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * I think they are all in good spots and there is a nice "word-to-image" ratio

TALK PAGE


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * All of the conversations are either suggested edits or people asking others to review the edits they had made.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This is a B-class article and is apart of several wikiprojects
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * it doesn't. This article gives the facts and provides specific examples exactly like we do in class.

OVERALL


 * What are the article's strengths?
 * I thought it did a great job covering the basics on pollution. The article serves its intended purpose.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Besides the few things I mentioned in this review (random sections, older sources, etc.), the article should just continue to update as more information comes out. There is nothing wrong about the information, but it might be beneficial to add things as the research is being done so the article doesn't seem repetitive or like plain common sense.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * This is a well developed article that thoroughly covers the basics of pollution.