User:Gonzalwk/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Deep-sea exploration

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose it because it is in relation to our class. I think it is important to learn about the ways in which we explore the deep sea as we have barely embarked on the journey to discover what our ocean holds.

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.)


 * 1) Lead section: I think the lead section gave a very good introduction to what the article was about. It open by defining what deep-sea exploration entails. However, it does not give a great overview of the sections that will be following in the article. It goes into a brief background of where deep-sea exploration started and where it is now. I think it is a good length to give a broad introduction into the article but probably should include a breakdown of what will be talked about.
 * 2) Content: the content in this article is very pertinent to what they said they were going to talk about. The sections of the article are not too lengthy and do well in explaining their focus. The content also seems very up-to-date with some references containing information as recent as 2020. They do not really mention anything regarding underrepresented groups, but I think what they miss is talking about clime change and the effect on deep sea exploration or how it has changed the way we have done our exploration.
 * 3) Tone and balance: the article seems pretty neutral; like i stated above, there wasn't really a mention of the environment and its impact on deep sea exploration and I feel like that was important to mention.
 * 4) Sources and references: i feel like in an article like this, first hand account are useful in relaying the history of deep-sea exploration. However, I feel like there may have been too much reliance on news articles and websites that may summarize research or scientific findings, rather than going to the original source.
 * 5) Organization and writing quality: the article is broken up in very clear sections and the writing seems very concise and to the point. There seems to be little "fluff" in this as it wants to get the facts across.
 * 6) images and media: I think the images in this article definitely add to its rating overall, however I feel as though some could have been better picked or more pictures/videos could have been added. I think it would have been useful to add more media on what certain submersibles looked like or how they have changed over time.
 * 7) Talk page discussion: the talk page does not seem to have a whole lot of information or discourse in it. There is an interesting question regarding the titanic being or not being considered deep sea exploration as well as clarification on the use of certain words. I think there could definitely be more on this other than announcements on links being modified, and it is definitely different in the ways we have explored this subject in class.
 * 8) Overall rating: overall I think the article, in a basic way, is very good. I think for someone who has never looked at deep-sea exploration, this would be a good way to get an idea of what it entails and what it has looked at over the years. However, I think they could benefit from some more pictures and videos on the technology as well as diving into more scholarly literature where maybe they could talk about an important dive and the research article behind that dive.