User:Huiqi w/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.


 * Hydrological transport model
 * It is related with environemntal engineering and I am feel interested in it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * The first sentance concisely describe the article's topic but it does not include a brief description of yjr major sections. It include information some information that is not present in the article, which I think should appear iin "history" part.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * The content is relevant to the topic but may be a little out of date. The is just surface runoff model in "Model components", missing other parts of the model.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * It is neutral and nonbiased. It does not attempt to persuade the reader in facor of any position.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * The sources are most from journals and official report, so they are reliable. The sourses are thorough but most of them are from articles in 1900s. Just few of them are latest. Some sources has no link which reader can click directly.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * It is concise and easy to read generally but the "history" part is not clear to read. Some hitory facts appear in other parts of the article. There are some grammatical and spelling errors.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * It includes some pictures but they are just like some landscape photography, which cannot enhance understanding regulations well. All images are well-captioned with titles and links showing the first uploader of them, and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.  They are shown in a appealing way.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * It is a part of WikiProject Soil, WikiProject Civil engineering, WikiProject Geography and WikiProject Geology. It is rated C-class in the latter three Wikiprojects. There is few conversation. Most of the talk is the explanation made by the author on what the changes he or she has done and the reasons for the changes. The difference is that there is no "name of the talk" at every talk message.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * It is generall good but need some additional information. The stengths are its concise and ralatively comprehensive introduction for existing models. The organization of the article can be improved and the content for "Model components" could be added more. The arcticle need to be added more latest information like the new models.


 * 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?

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: