User:GomezCe/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) Microplastics

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 micro plastics because they are everywhere and are really small so they are difficult to clean up. They pollute the water. They are really bad for our environment and for animals.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section:

It does include an introductory sentence that describes the topic well. Its like a summary.

It does include a brief description of the major sections.

Everything in the lead is present in the article.

It's concise.

Content:

All of the content is relevant to the topic

It is up to date there are a lot of sources from different years and I saw some from 2020.

There are some topics with more writing than others but they have enough information about the topic.

It does not address topics related to under represented populations.

Tone and Balance:

The article is neutral. It is stating facts from sources.

It doesn't seem biased. The article is stating facts and some of those facts say the harm of microplastics but they are not biased if it's a fact.

I don't think there are view points that are over represented.

I didn't notice if there are minority or fringe view points.

It's not trying to persuade the reader in favor of any position.

Sources and References:

All the writing throughout the article is cited.

There are sources from different years so there are current sources. There are also older sources and I don't know if all the information is up to date.

The names of the authors are names from different countries. And names of women. I do think it is diverse.

There are articles written by people at universities. There are a lot of scientific articles that are peer reviewed.

All the links I clicked do work.

Organization and writing quality:

It is well written.

No I didn't see any errors.

It is well organized. It is broken down into sections.

Images and media:

There are some images but I think it would be better if there were more. It would help the reader understand the topic. There is a paragraph about baby bottles and an image next to it of a baby drinking from a bottle and I don't think that Image was helpful. I would prefer to see a diagram of how the microplastic end up in marine life. I found some by searching it on google.

They are well captioned

They do adhere to Wikipedia's regulations

The images are on the right side of the article. They are all together on one side. I think it would be better if they were places next to a topic as an example.

Talk page discussion:

There are people saying that some things need to be corrected or that there are some things without sources. They are mostly suggesting corrections and changes.

It is rated c-class on some WikiProjects.

Overall impressions

The article is good for basic knowledge. There are a lot of topics within the article which have links to other articles.

It provides a lot of information. It covers several things. It covers the sources, effect on the environment and possible solution and some other things.

It could have better images.

It is complete but if I want to know more about a topic within the article like its effects on the ocean or how it has affected the human body I would have to look for those articles

I thought the article was good but after reading the talk page discussion, it seems like there are things that needed to be corrected.