User:H2Oworks/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: Jones Lake State Park
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This article is about a lake and state park in southeastern North Carolina, which fits with the theme of the Wikipedia project for the ENV 3100 class.
 * I'm making new edits

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It has a table of contents, but not a description of each major section
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * concise

Lead evaluation

 * Lead seems to be pretty good, offering basic information on the location of the park and the activities that are available.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Most of the references were retrieved in 2007 and 2008, so the article is not up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All content belongs in the article. I'm not aware of specific content that is missing, however the State Parks system may have additional information or data about the lake that could be added.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article does describe how Jones Lake State Park was originally created for African Americans to use.

Content evaluation

 * Content is applicable and useful. However, the article is rather short and there may be more information and/or data from the State Parks department or other North Carolina state agencies that could be added to this article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * no
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

Tone and balance evaluation

 * Information is presented in a straightforward and unbiased manner.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Most of the sources are websites from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, which is a reliable source of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * These sources likely represent a lot of the available literature on the topic, but it is possible that there have been other studies or data collected on this lake.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Not very current, because the website references were last accessed in 2007/2008. It would be useful to re-visit these websites and update the article with any new information.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No, the majority of the sources are written by North Carolina state government agencies. It is difficult to know exactly who wrote the information in those websites, though.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Most of the links work, but many of them now direct to the same website instead of websites specific to the park's history or ecology.

Sources and references evaluation

 * The references are from reliable sources, but they need to be updated and/or corrected to the new websites.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is concise and easy to read
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are multiple grammatical errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Article is well-organized with headings for each major topic.

Organization evaluation

 * The organization of the article is good, but there are several grammatical errors that detract from the article.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, there are a few images that are helpful for the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Some of the captions could be more detailed.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, all images are attributed.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There are not many images, but they are included with the appropriate sections and are consistently placed on the right side of the screen.

Images and media evaluation

 * Images provided are useful and all of them are attributed. However, some of the image captions could use a little more detail.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There really aren't any conversations going on about this topic in the talk page. The only section is "External Links Modified" and has one comment from a bot.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated as C-class and is part of 2 WikiProjects: WikiProject Protected Areas and WikiProject United States.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Since there isn't much on the talk page, I can't really evaluate this question.

Talk page evaluation

 * Not much here- it seems like this article has not been edited much since it was created.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It's a good start, but there is definitely room for updates and improvement in the article.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Good organization, lots of external links, and statements are generally backed up with sources.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Fix grammatical issues, update references, and add more recent information.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say this article is a little underdeveloped.

Overall evaluation

 * This article is pretty good for what is there, but there are definite areas where the article can be improved and/or updated.

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: