User:Equinon1/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: Diagenesis
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: Not really familiar with the term diagenesis, but it has been mentioned in class and in assigned readings.

Lead
Guiding questions


 * 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? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Lead evaluation
The Lead is concise and it clearly defines the term diagenesis in its first sentence.

Content
Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Is any information out of date? Not familiar enough with the topic to know.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Is there anything that distracted you?
 * What else could be improved? Perhaps more information could be added to the last major section of the article.

Content evaluation
The article's content seems relevant to the topic, but the mention of bone deterioration outside of the topic section for the role of diagenesis in bone decomposition was a little confusing. Only two sentences in the last major section of the article seems short for a major section.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * 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? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article's tone is neutral and the first two major sections seem balanced, but the last one could be improved.

Sources and References
Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not all of them.
 * 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? Yes.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Yes.
 * Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Sources and references evaluation
Most of the facts in the article are referenced and the information comes from peer reviewed journals, but other statements, like the first four sentences of the second major section, were not backed up by any secondary source of information.

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 Lead is easy to read, but other parts of the article not so much. I didn't notice any gramatical or spelling errors, and the article seems well-organized.

Images and Media
Guiding questions


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

Images and media evaluation
The article includes a couple of images. These help visualize the concept discussed in the article and they are both captioned.

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
There is a conversation about Anthropological bias being present in the article. The article is rated C-Class and it is part of WikiProject Geology.

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 article has been rated as top-importance on the project's importance scale. Its Lead is one of its strengths. The article seems a little underdeveloped.

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: N/A