User:Fosterelliott/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: Ekati Diamond Mine (Ekati Diamond Mine)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate since I know a little about the Ekati Diamond Mine, but mostly because this past summer I worked as a research assistant at the Tundra Ecosystem Research Station at Daring Lake, NWT, and the Ekati Diamond Mine was the closest medical emergency location to call if needed. Also because on the beaches of Daring Lake are remnants of the kimberlite trail that I think were used to locate the kimberlite pipe (There was 'purple' layers in the sand that washed up on the shore).

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the Lead does include an introductory sentence that states the articles topic as well as an interesting fact, that the Ekati Diamond Mine is Canada's first surface and underground diamond mine.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the lead provides a table of contents that indicates the major sections of the article as well as hyperlinks to take you to that location in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the lead includes information about the stake of the company, and who owned shares, between a mining corporation Dominion Diamond Mines, and the two geologists who were the prospectors.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise, it includes what the article is about, where the location of the mine is and who it is owned and operated by.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all of the content is relevant to the article topic of the Ekati Diamond Mine.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * No, the latest 'annual' evaluations of the Ekati Diamond Mine are for 2013, so the article is slightly out-of-date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Some missing content might be an overview of the mine, since in the article it calls different pits by name, however the reader would have no clue that those names represent (i.e. Fox Pit, where is the Fox Pit?, how deep is it?, how much diamonds are brought out of that pit per year? total estimated reserves are in that pit?). Other missing content is about the possible legal battle that occurred to gain the ability to mine since that location is likely on First Nations/Indigenous occupied land.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * I believe the article is neutral, however it does use a CBC article as a source for a estimated sale price of the mine of $500 million USD, in 2012.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, the article's claims appear to be neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are not viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented since the article is small it lacks individual views, and appears to state facts.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the article is simply about the mine itself and its plan on extracting the diamonds from the ground.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, there is one fact that is stated about how there are 156 known kimberlite pipes in the area, however it does not give a reference to where this information came from.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No, the article appears to have few sources that are from literature, and most are from the common news companies.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are only as current as the article, so about 2013.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links in the article work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is well-written, since each section is concise and clear, with informative information throughout.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors in the article.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the article is well organized, however some major sections are missing.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, on the side of the article there is an areal photo of the mine, as well as a location on a NWT map of the location of the mine to help readers visualize where the mine is.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes the images have captions which allow the reader to know what the images are of.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, it appears as though the images follow Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, the images that are there, are in an appealing way in which the reader can easily find and understand the images.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are a few conversations going on about other aspects of the mine, such as largest crystal found, and if there are ties to the New England Volcanic Hotspot.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated as C-class, and is part of the WikiProjects; Mining (C-class Mid-importance), Gemology and Jewelry (inactive), Volcanoes/Canada (C-class, Low-importance), and Canada/Territories/Geography (C-class, Low-importance).
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The Wikipedia discusses this topic about the mine and its stakes and the location, meanwhile in class we look at more local (Ontario) areas and deposits.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I think the overall status of the article is that it is a good base but needs more work.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The strengths of this article are that it has a good foundation of information, and the information is mostly all cited, as well as has good background on the mine itself.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can give more information on the mine itself, pit locations and sites, different revenues or costs associated with the mine, information about the ice road and its importance to the mine.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article underdeveloped, and needs more work but has a good foundation and setup to the article page.

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: