User:Emalone66/Evaluate an Article

Water Supply and Sanitation in Spain

Lead Section:


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It does okay, but the part about tariffs I think could be saved for later when it could be explained a little better since it is also later in the article sections and some things could be a little reorganized to have a better flow.
 * 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? Concise

Content:


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Not all content is super up to date. A lot of the statistics are from up to 10 years ago and more recent data should be added into the explanations.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Some things could be filled in a with a little more detail and explanation.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance:


 * 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? Yes
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References:


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes there are a lot of citations and all data has a source backing it up.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I think they could find more up to date sources and data.
 * Are the sources current? Not really
 * 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.) Yes, and more current ones as well.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Many do, but one doesn't.

Organization and Writing Quality:


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is concise but almost too concise sometimes where not enough explanation follows anything and it feels more like a list of facts sometimes than an article.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? A few grammar and wording errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is organized decently, but some categories I think could be changed around or combined to make a better structured article.

Images and Media:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images.
 * Are images well-captioned? There are no images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? There are no images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There are no images.

Talk Page Discussion:


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are only two comments from the same user saying what edits they made from 2016.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is a part of the water, Spain, and sanitation wikiprojects and it is rated Start-Class and Mid-Importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It goes into the history which isn't something we discuss in class.

Overall Impressions:


 * What is the article's overall status? It isn't a terrible article and definitely has some good information, but I think it still needs some work.
 * What are the article's strengths? It has good background and starting information.
 * How can the article be improved? It needs more up to date information and can be reorganized a little nit.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It isn't poorly developed, but it isn't fully developed either.