User:Hulalogo/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Canfield ocean

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate after searching for Environmental Science pages and saw the word euxinia and wondered what it meant and then found the Canfield ocean. It matters because it describes part of how the oceans were forming billions of years ago. My first impression of the article was that it was short but full of global scale implications. (Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * 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? No
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) Yes, it mentions the Boring Billion and a previous theory in the lead but nowhere else in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? It has details not included in other sections so I will say it is overly detailed.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, there is an article from 2022.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I am aware.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No this does not deal with these topics.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there is a neutrality throughout.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, there is a section of evidence for the articles viewpoint and a section that disputes the articles validity.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Not that I can infer.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes most are.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes there are different papers and publications represented
 * Are the sources current? Yes as of 2022.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes. I would assume so with the long list of authors on two sources.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Not that I can find, these aren't just random website sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? They all work.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? For the most part yes.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Maybe some run on sentences.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes but I think there could have been at least one more section.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is one image and that displays a cycle of how it might happen so yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No it is just attached to the lead.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are conversations of clarifications within the article, like removing unnecessary references, changing the title or adding sections. There also was a discussion about if the sources were encyclopedic enough and if the article should be a stub.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated Start-class on the content assessment scale and Low importance on the project scale. Yes it is part of WikiProject Geology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? They talk about adding and removing "peacock words."

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? It has some content that is interesting but seems like it needs more.
 * What are the article's strengths? Probably the presence of the point and counterpoint to the topic.
 * How can the article be improved? More details about what some more technical terms mean and just more 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 it is underdeveloped since there is information in the lead that doesn't have its own section, leading to the desire for more information needed to be found elsewhere.