User:EEBFeco/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: (Gaia Hypothesis)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

This hypothesis was mentioned in some of the readings we have done for the class, and I found it rather confounding, but interesting nonetheless and I want to learn more.

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 includes an introductory sentence and a brief paragraph pertaining to each of the article's major sections. The content of each paragraph is brief and is expanded upon greatly in its corresponding section.

Content

 * Guiding questions

Revisions for this article are still actively being made up to the present day. It is worth noting that their are no references more recent than 2017, which is unusual for scientific topics. I feel that some of the content within the History section (particularly the Gaia Conferences subsections) are unnecessary, and exceed the necessary background information that pertains to a scientific hypothesis


 * 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
Revisions for this article are still actively being made up to the present day. It is worth noting that their are no references more recent than 2017, which is unusual for scientific topics. I feel that some of the content within the History section (particularly the Gaia Conferences subsections) are unnecessary, and exceed the necessary background information that pertains to a scientific hypothesis.

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
Finding the appropriate middle ground on a controversial topic such as this is difficult and somewhat arbitrary, but I feel that this article does a good job. Both proponent and critical arguments are given meaningful voice, and neither perspective is burdened with disclaimers.

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
There are a few claims within the details section that are labeled as needing citation, but the majority of the page is backed by sources. The references include a significant amount of sources from the primary scientific literature, though none that are younger than about three years. Links are functional.

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 very concisely divided into subsections for easy navigation. I would argue how ever that the conference subsections in the history section could be condensed into one section based on importance. I did not notice any spelling or grammatical mistakes.

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 appropriate and aesthetically verified. The inclusion of scientific graphs to accompany the details section is also valuable for comprehension. Images are well captioned and are with the public domain.

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
Much of the discussion on the talk page concerns the organization of key ideas, and how they should be ordered in order to provide a neutral perspective. It seems that the organizations of sections and their names have been heavily overhauled, and much of the discussion concerns this. Additional discussion concerning the importance of the conference subsections and the meaning of the original hypothesis are also noteworthy.

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
This is a C-Class article with a strong amount of content and supporting references pertaining to the topic. Organization is generally strong, but lacks conciseness in the conference sub-sections, which seem unnecessary. If given a few more recent references in the primary literature, I would consider this a well-developed article.

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: