User:Grifnata/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: Subglacial lake
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

This is the page that my group is interested in expanding. I thought it would be useful to evaluate its current strengths and weaknesses to help identify what my group's contributions should be.

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 introductory sentence is a plain definition of a subglacial lake. The rest of the lead paragraph does not describe any of the article's major sections. I would say it's much too concise and will need to be expanded substantially.

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?

Content evaluation
The article consists of two poorly-integrated sections. One is on the physical properties of subglacial lakes (especially Lake Vostok), and the other is a mixed history of exploration and state-of-the-science summary of subglacial lakes in Antarctica.

The article is not up to date. It references expected expeditions in 2011-2012 and does not reference some exciting findings by the Subglacial Antarctic Lakes Scientific Access (SALSA) team in 2019.

The article does not discuss life or biogeochemistry in subglacial lakes and only briefly mentions subglacial lakes in Greenland.

There is a small section on extraterrestrial subglacial lakes that could be expanded and needs better references.

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 article is mostly appropriate in terms of tone and balance. It focuses mostly on Antarctic subglacial lakes, which appropriately reflects the amount of research done there, but it would be appropriate to add sections on non-Antarctic lakes. It doesn't seem particularly biased.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The "characteristics" section is poorly cited and needs more references. The article has only nine sources total, and about half of them are poor-quality (news features and bulletin updates). These sources do not reflect the breadth of literature on the topic.

The links appear to work, but the word hyperlinks on the "Extraterrestrial subglacial lakes" section lead to counterintuitive pages ("subglacial lakes" leads to a page section on Europa's subsurface ocean; another "subglacial lake" leads to a page on Martian subglacial lakes and a page on Martian lakes more generally.

The "See also" section is more useful and has links to several better-developed pages on individual subglacial lakes. None of these are referenced in the article's main body. The same applies for the "External links" section.

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's syntax is fine, but its overall structure is poor. The "Characteristics" section uses no topic sentences and is a blur between water properties, geographic setting, and hydrostatic seals and outburst floods. It needs to be broken down into more logical subsections.

The "Antarctica" section uses some topic sentences, but does not distinguish between the history of lake exploration in Antarctica, more recent scientific expeditions, and the results of these expeditions.

It would probably be useful to have separate sections for lake physical characteristics, hydrologic significance of subglacial lakes in relation to ice sheets, biogeochemical processes, life and implications for astrobiology, history of subglacial lake exploration, major subglacial lake research expeditions, and summaries of subglacial lakes in Antarctica, Greenland, and elsewhere. Probably not in that order.

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 includes three images. One is a water phase diagram that references Lake Vostok but doesn't appear to be specific to the lake. It is probably too complicated for the average Wikipedia reader to understand, although the caption is helpful. The second image is a portrait of Peter Kropotkin. He looks like a nice old man, but I'm not sure his face is representative of subglacial lakes in Antarctica. It might be better suited for his own Wiki page. The third is a NASA image of Lake Vostok, which is relevant and useful but could use an expanded caption that talks about how the lack of topography above Lake Vostok is one way to identify subglacial lakes from satellite imagery.

The images are well-laid out and seem to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

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 article's talk page includes some requests for clarification regarding the use of jargon and some references in the "Characteristics" section. The comments were made in 2008/2009 and haven't gotten a response. Some links were modified in 2011, 2012, and 2017. Someone made an objection to the reference regarding subglacial lakes on Europa in 2011 and has not received a satisfactory response. Some other minor suggestions for consistency were made. Overall, there doesn't seem to have been any broad discussion about what the page should cover and what content it might be missing.

The article is rated C-class, mid-importance in the WikiProjects for Lakes, Glaciers, Geology, Geography, Antarctica, and Russia/Science & Education/Physical geography.

We have not discussed this topic in class. It currently contains no information on biogeochemistry or ecology.

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's overall status is in need of restructuring, addition and expansion of some sections, additional citations, and better integration with the other information about subglacial lakes on Wikipedia. It provides a useful background on subglacial lake physical properties that can be expanded to subjects other than freezing points and hydrostatic seals. The section on early work on subglacial lakes can be mostly left as-is, and the second part of that section can be broken out into a history of specific expeditions and their results. Sections on lake biogeochemistry and life can be added. Overall, the article is underdeveloped.

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: