User:Faust4276/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Dirt - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose a broad topic that would have many applications. Dirt is everywhere and refers to a lot of many more specific things. This article focuses on the idea of being dirty and was appears to be a very surface level description of dirt.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

The article includes a clear definition of dirt and includes some examples of what things are considered as dirt. However, the article does not focus a lot on the definition included in the lead section and does not address the sections to follow. Although the lead section is concise, it has very little correlation to the topics discussed later in the article.

Content:

Most of the sections are very brief and the purpose for their inclusion is not clear. The Etymology section could have easily been included in the lead section. The content is up to date, however, it does not touch on any underrepresented topics or communities with it focusing mostly on the definition of dirtiness accepted in well-developed nations. Some of the content included seems irrelevant to the topic of the definition of dirt and focuses on other ideas just related to dirt.

Tone:

The article has a neutral tone and does not argue any particular view.

Sources:

Most sources are from books and articles instead of them being peer-reviewed academic journals. There are better sources than newspaper articles to gather opinions and facts on the definition of dirt and its applications.

Organization & Quality:

The article is disorganized and not thorough. The sections of content leave much to be desired on the information front and often times some of the content does not relate directly to the definition of dirt and being unclean. Instead, it focuses on examples of cleaning, and psychological disorders related to dirt.

Images:

The article does include images related to sections of content with short and concise captions. These provide a good visual representation of the topics discussed.

Talk Page:

The first discussion is about deleting the article, which is not a good sign for it being a good article. Based on some discussions it looks like there was more sections at one time but it was later revised to the current article.

Overall:

The article could use more development. It has a foundation but looks like a project that was abandoned mid-way through development. The lead section can be revised to focus more on the aspect of "dirtiness" rather than "dirt" to fit the sections of content better. The current sections are a good foundation for that otherwise, just need to be fleshed out further. This can be fixed by using better sources that provide more detail rather than articles in newspapers. Along with that, adding a few more sections to help fully describe what dirtiness is in other contexts, especially in less developed and underrepresented populations will help provide a better idea on what the global idea of "dirtiness" is.