User:Guisasola13/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: Plate tectonics
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because much of the structures discussed in class are caused by or associated with plate tectonics

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * There is an introductory sentence that summarized the article as concisely as it can. It is a large topic and so the sentence is also fairly long.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead includes a brief description of most of the articles sections. It doesn't touch much on the creation and alternate theories nor does it introduce the idea of the plate tectonics of other planets in the solar system.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * There is a few small things not expanded upon in the rest of the article. Such as the age tectonics started, but i don't think there is too much that could be expanded on with that.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is, I feel, very concise and explains the concept just enough for a lead.

Lead evaluation
The lead is effective and is concise enough to not drag on to long and not overly technical to turn away potential readers.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The articles content is very relevant to the topic with no obvious diverges
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * It is as up to date as something for the layman is expected to be. It's not covering new theories and research being done, but the info put out is up to date with what is understood to be fact.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I don't think there is anything missing or any content that does not belong.

Content evaluation
The content is very good. In depth topics that are explored thoroughly and even additional information that could have been left out and I wouldn't have bat an eye.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is very neutral and very scientific.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The one place I expected bias would have been in discussing the origin of continental drift theory. I expected the authors to take on a overly pro-Wegener stance and be biased against the scientists who didn't believe him.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The viewpoints of the scientists arguing against continental drift theory are mentioned but not explored.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I don't think the article attempts to persuade the reader.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance is good. It is written in a very neutral and scientific manner that doesn't come off as manipulative.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The facts are all sourced well
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most of them are current, but many of the topics
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Of the 10 links I clicked on, all worked.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * the writing is very well done and not confusing.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors, but I may have just read over some.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is very well organized. The sections are logical and easy to read.

Organization evaluation
The organization of this article is probably the most impressive part to me. It is well organized and easy to read.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * the article does include graphs and diagrams that support the topics and enhance the topics being covered.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, they are.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I believe so, yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The images are spread out and sized in a way that enhances the presentation.

Images and media evaluation
The images used are very good. The graphs and diagrams are much more helpful than just a generic picture.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * In the talk page there are conversations on clarifications and potential errors, as well as discussion on new developments or potential changes.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated with a C but is being evaluated to maybe move up to B. It is a part of many wikiprojects related to other geologic topics
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The discussions in the talk page feel more like a group equals talking together where as class feels like a class.

Talk page evaluation
The talks page for this article isn't to crazy. There isn't fights going on or anything. The discussion is civil and intelligence.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is very good.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * the article is well written and well layed out.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article is currently locked so i feel like there isn't too much that could be improved.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think that the article is pretty complete, until some new discoveries shake things up.

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: