User:FelixMH60/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: Water quality law
 * Selected this topic out of general curiosity in the regulations and policies that ensure the safe consumption and use of water.

 LEAD 

Guiding questions


 * 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 provides an introductory sentence that provides a brief overview of water quality laws, this could be a little more concise and include more detailed description as to the content below. The use of links are beneficial in determining the overall meaning of the introductory paragraph as it is currently written. Within the first paragraph, the lead discusses areas that are not covered in a major section with-in the article. For example, within the opening paragraph, the lead discusses, “regulatory areas including sewage treatment plans and disposal”, however, this is generally discussed within the contents below in various areas. Recommend, adding a flow that bridges the sections within the article and introductory paragraph.

 CONTENT 

Guiding questions

Content evaluation
 * 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 is relevant to the topic, however, requires amplification. For example, two sections: “Dumping Bans” and “Permitting, Data collection, and access” are empty which could question the relevance. Content requires an update. For example, within the article discusses ground water regulation within the introductory section, within the content, several other articles and some of those are missing such as the Superfund act, FIFRA, TSCA. The article does not address in its entirety the historical topics related to the subject. For example, the Clean Water Act is an amendment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

 TONE AND BALANCE 

Guiding questions

Tone and balance evaluation
 * 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?

The article is neutral. The topic includes a lot of information regarding water laws within the United States that deters from other countries. Those areas could be considered underrepresented. Additionally, gaps in information from designated topics such as sections (4) and (5). The article does persuade the reader in a specific direction.

 SOURCES AND REFERENCES 

Guiding questions

Sources and references evaluation
 * 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?

In most areas, the article appears to be backed by reliable secondary sources. Improvement in some areas include the regulated waters section needs sources to justify its relevance with water quality law. Links are heavily leaned on with United States Code, Code of Federal Regulations, or the EPA’s website. Branching into a more diverse spectrum of authors will improve this article. Checked some of the reference links and they do work. The external link to Environment Canada did not work.

 ORGANIZATION 

Guiding questions

Organization evaluation
 * 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?

Article is easy to read with some areas of improvement. The use of links to other Wikipedia articles in some sections make reading fragmented. For example, within the first sentence, the reader is required to review several definitions in order to understand the overall idea of what water quality law is defined as. Additional flow between the first introductory paragraph to match the lower contents would also assist in organization.

 IMAGES AND MEDIA 

Guiding questions

Images and media evaluation
 * 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?

The article uses images through links to other Wikipedia articles that enhance the understanding of the topic. No other images are used within the article. Room for improvement could include a conceptual model of water quality laws.

 CHECKING THE TALK PAGE 

Guiding questions

Talk page evaluation
 * 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?

No conversations within the talk page. This topic is part of three WikiProjects which include: Law, Environment, and Water. The content assessment rating ranges from Start to Stub.

 OVERALL IMPRESSIONS 

Guiding questions

Overall evaluation
 * 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?

Status of the article is incomplete. Strengths include a starting point to springboard further research to make valuable additions. Article can be improved with visuals, clarity of context, and amplifying information. Overall, the article is underdeveloped with potential for growth.

 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Water_quality_law#Water_Quality_Law_-_Evaluation

References