User:Ernest Flancia/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Name of article: Geological period
 * I have chosen to evaluate this article because I believe that geological periods and time are very important in illustrating the earth's history.

Lead

 * 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 of this article includes an introductory sentence which is slightly overly detailed, but distinctly describes the topic. It describes geological periods as being one of the several subdivisions of geological time. It includes a content box which gives a brief introduction of what readers can expect before moving forward into the article.

Content

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

Content evaluation
- All content in this article are relevant to the topic and shows a great amount of information on geological periods. Under the structures section, a table is shown which includes all currently recognized periods subdivided into Eon > Era > Period > Extent > Duration. There is no content missing and even if you find yourself short handed in information, there is a link that is given under "see also" which provides a Geologic time scale - a new article presenting chronological dating that classifies stratigraphy in time.

Tone and Balance

 * 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
- In this article, there is no attempt whatsoever to persuade the reader to one position, but rather, the main tone is to provide neutral information on the given topic and to present a well structured table of geological periods. There are no viewpoints that are being overrepresented but readers are given a substantial amount of information on the topic.

Sources and References

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

Sources and references evaluation
- All sources and facts in this article are very well laid out and are a great source of secondary information. I checked a few links randomly throughout the page and they are all working and have led to the website needed for more information on understanding the article.

Organization

 * 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
- I believe this article is written very well with no spelling errors. It is structured in a way where readers will be given the information they are looking for and will learn more about the topics given because of all the sources and content given on the article.

Images and Media

 * 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
- There are no images in this article but there are tables that represent the geological periods which is very well organized for readers to easily understand.

Checking the talk page

 * 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 are no conversations throughout the article representing the topic, but learning from this article is very similar to learning about geological eras/periods in class.

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
- Overall, I don't see any way this article can be improved. The topics are structured in a way that is easy for readers to find information, there is a good amount of information and everything on the page is well correlated to the geological periods.

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: