User:Hockeydunkin/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Co-benefits of climate change mitigation

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I was assigned this article by my professor to evaluate for my peers.

Evaluate the article
- Is there a lead section? Yes

- Does the lead sentence describes the articles topic clearly and concisely? Yes

- Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? No

- Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed - I would say that there could be a better lead sentence than just defaulting to a definition.

- Is the article's content relevant to the topic? - Not all of it, as I feel that the definitions of the terms, as well as the expansion of it from things unrelated to Climate Change is not relevant to the topic.

- Is the content up-to-date? Some of it yes, when evaluating the sources there are some from 2017 - 2018 however, some of the information is from the early 2000's. As this is a ever-changing topic I feel as though there has to be some more updated information.

- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? As I mentioned above, I feel that the definitions, along with all the information under Policy making and research do not belong under this page. They belong under the Co-benefits page but not the co-benefits of climate change mitigation page.

- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Yes, all of them as I feel as though all of the co-benefits mentioned do not account for any of the equity gaps from Wikipedia.

- Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No As I mentioned above there is no mention of any equity gaps.

- Is the article neutral? Yes, however it is critical to stay this way as you are only looking at what everyone would perceive to be benefits, not what just you perceive to be benefits.

- Are there any claims that appear to heavily biased toward a particular position? No, as the entire article is only focused on the co-benefits of climate change mitigation.

- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented? As mentioned above there are not a lot of accounts to those who cannot afford to achieve the co-benefits of climate change mitigation as they live in an area that cannot afford it.

- Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? No, as they are not mentioned at all.

- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Slightly yes, however I am unsure because it is only focused on the co-benefits and not the downfalls as well.

- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, however as stated above some are outdated.

- Are the sources thorough? Yes there is an abundance of them as well, which should correlate to content however in this case it does not.

- Are the sources current? - some yes, others no.

- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - Yes there is a wide range of authors, however as stated above there is no correlation to content.

- Are there better sources available? - Yes, if you look up the content in the outdated articles there are plenty of new and updated ones with lots of great information.

- Links:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01032-7

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620352331

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X21000154

- Is the article well-written? I would say somewhat, most sections are clear however they can be clearer with the addition of explanatory sentences.

- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I can find.

- Is the article well-organized? Yes

- Does the article include images that enhance the understanding of the topic? Yes, there are some great images.

- Are the images well-captioned? No as they are all clumped together so you cannot tell which caption goes to which image.

- Do all the images adhere to the copyright regulations? Yes

- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No, they are all clumped at the beginning, I would break it up throughout the article and put the image next to where the article mentions that co-benefit.

- What kinds of conversations are on the talk page? There are none.

- How is the article rated? Is it a part of WikiProjects? No

- How does the way Wikipedia discusses the topic differ from the way we have talked about it in class? In class we have gone much more in depth than in this article. As in class we have gone down to the chemical level to explain the co-benefits of climate change.

- What is the article's overall status? S

- What are the article's strengths? Almost all of the most basic information is already present, it just needs to be expanded on.

- How can it be improved? As I have stated many times above, eliminating unrelated topics and building on those that are related.

- How would you assess the articles completeness. I would say it has bare bones right now. If you build on these it will be a great article!