User:GeoChemStud/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:Geology of Arizona
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. As someone who is studying geology and would like to gain a general knowledge of geologic compositions of places around me, I felt interested to evaluate an article on the geology of place with some personal meaning.

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 for this article is successful at providing a summary of the content of the rest of the article. It takes a concise, chronological approach to recounting the events that have played a role in the geography of Arizona. It also does well to discuss these events without providing extraneous detail and stays on topic.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
The overall content of the article is on topic as it breaks down the geological transformations related to Arizona over time. It then describes the modern day geological situation like the hydrogeology and natural resources. The article appears to be up-to-date since it makes references to studies done as recent as 2016. The detail of the content is shallow in some areas. It sort of feels a little shallow in the hydrogeology section. People have been impacting the geology of Arizona further back than 1915. The topic of the article does not directly have connections to equity gaps, but it would not be surprising if there were instances where certain communities (maybe related to the reservations) experienced inequity related to the geology of Arizona.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
The tone of the article is neutral in that it sticks to reporting to what has occurred, or what studies have said (and saying it was interpreted by a study). However, the references for the article are very limited. It mainly refers one primary source for most of its geological recounting and the file linked to the references is also broken. While it may not necessarily mean it is inaccurate, telling a wide range of historical events based on one writer's perspective prevents the chance to highlight any discrepancies or disagreements. This is a good example of an overrepresented viewpoint. The article does do well to avoid making persuasive statements.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
As stated before, most of the past geological events being described are coming mainly from a single source. The main sources come from published articles but are not primary sources of information. It's unclear if these sources received their information from reliable, vetted studies. Its not evident whether Rasmusson is outdated or needs correction and the hydrogeology sources are relatively recent. The article does use sources that come from underrepresented groups since both Rasmusson and Chronic are both female authors and geologists. The Rasmusson link on the article does not work.

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 article is does provide a lot of information but does so using rather simple, concise language. For someone not well versed in geological terms, it can make it difficult to read. However, the article makes a good effort to provide links to related pages when bringing up specific geological terms and events. The article appeared to be absent of grammatical/spelling errors. The article is well organized in the sense that talking about the geology of an area makes the most sense to be done chronological and then leads to recent history geology.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
The article contains no images. The article could stand to benefit from images, especially when it starts referencing to specific counties and its hydrogeology. A map of Arizona and its geography, whether past or present, could help bring context to the reader.

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
The talk page only has one comment and makes a fair critique of the lead. That comment mainly focuses on readability and how the article is made cryptic with very technical vocabulary. This article is rated as C-class and low-importance for Geology and mid-importance for Arizona. It's hard to see how Wikipedia has discussed this topic since the topic has not received much attention/critique, but there does seem to be a tone in making the information digestible and well-supported.

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
The article does not have an overall status but it has been rated as C-class. The article does well in setting up a good framework for describing the geology of Arizona from a historical perspective. However, the article is rather technical in writing and tells one story. The article could undergo much more development. The recent history and human relationship could have a great potential for headings. The article could certainly be improved by making the material more digestible by reducing the jargon and providing images that can provide valuable context to the content.

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: