User:Eitamh/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating an article titled "Environmental Science," which can be found at this link: Environmental science

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is a broad scientific discipline that relates to limnology. Many of the concepts and skills we are learning about in limnology class can be used to do studies related to environmental science. I am also very interested in environmental sciene, since it is an important topic to study in order to protect the future of the Earth and the people and other species who live on Earth.

My preliminary impression is that this article seems thorough in giving brief summaries of the many fields within environmental science, as well as a brief history as to why environmental science is important and significant.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * 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?

Yes.


 * 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?

I think it is a good summary of what's to come in the article, but the last paragraph mentioning events that lead to the creation of the field of environmental science could be a section of its own later on in the article.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

Yes: there is a new reference dated May 2021.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

No.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

No, although the article does have a link to "Environmental Studies," which would deal with historically underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view?

Yes.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No.


 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

I don't see any minority viewpoints.


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * 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?

There is a mix of current and older sources.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

There are sources from both the U.S. and the U.K., but more diverse sources could probably be used as well.


 * 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.)

All the sources used seem to be from reputable sources, but more sources would make for a better and more accurate reference list.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * 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

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes.


 * Are images well-captioned?

Yes.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Yes.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Yes.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

The talk page is very extensive with converstaions going back to 2005. There are conversations about whether it is important or appropriate to include politics in an article about environmental science, as well as conversations about which related scientific disciplines are necessary to include in the article. There is also an interesting conversation about the history section of the article and how far back in time this history should go.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

It's a level-5 vital article, and it is rated as c-Class.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

This article goes into a bit more diverse details about environmental science than I have learned about in most classes, because the classes I take generally focus on biology topics.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?

I think it's pretty strong.


 * What are the article's strengths?

This article presents many diverse examples of the subdisciplines of environmental science and how environmental science is useful.


 * How can the article be improved?

The history of environmental science and current regulations could be made into its own section and could include more information not only related to the United States.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

This article seems complete to me, but it should be re-evaluated over time since more research related to environmental science comes out all the time.