User:HighQualityWater/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Talk:Scientific literacy

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 this article because I thought it was pertinent to the topics of this course. It matters because scientific literacy is necessary for a firm foundation for any scientist. At first I found the writing of the article to be chunky and transitioning between the different sections felt blocky and unnatural. I found the writing on the talk page to have been written in a flippant and unprofessional manner.

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 - The lead section does not contain an introductory sentence or describe the upcoming sections. It is overly detailed and contains an abundance of links for it just being the introductory sequence.

Content - The content is outdated. The most recent citation is from eight years ago. Scientific literacy is not a commonly identified equity gap, so the low quality of the article cannot be explained that way. The writing goes on tangents and detract from the main focus.

Tone and Balance - The tone starts off neutral but in the third section the viewpoint shifts and that disrupts the rest of the article. The article is unbiased and unpersuasive and is written in an informative manner.

Sources and References - There is a wide range of sources and viewpoints. However, a number of the links no longer work and at least one source appeared to be an unreliable, blog-type website. There are no sources from with the last eight years, all those that are listed are older.

Organization and Writing Quality - The organization of the article is poor. The grammar is well done and there aren't any spelling mistakes. While the article is broken into different sections, they don't flow well and that makes it difficult to read.

Images and Media - There are no images contained within the article.

Talk Page Discussion - The article is C-rated and part of the education, linguistics, and science WikiProjects. The talk page is written informally in certain sections, and there are gaps of years between the various entries. The talk page is written way more casually than what I was expected based on what was discussed in class.

Overall Impressions - Overall the article is in below average condition. Its strengths lie in the informative and unbiased writing, but it could use improvements in organization and general content. The article is underdeveloped, there is good content there that just needs some time and attention for improvements.