User:Hydrogeo25/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: (link) Aquifer
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I really enjoy studying groundwater systems and the geochemistry of groundwater so I thought the article about aquifers would be good to evaluate

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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I feel like a section just on contamination could be added, but there isn't anything that doesn't belong
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It talks about human dependence on aquifers and groundwater as a source of water for people in third world countries. I wouldn't say it goes into that much detail on this topic though.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not that I can tell
 * 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

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? It appears so
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? For the most part, there's a good amount from the last 10 years
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes and I'm not so sure they include historically marginalized individuals
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, but some parts are a little technical
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I could find
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, but they're could be more for the different types of aquifers
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? It appears so
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? People are talking about the depth, capillary saturation, and how the article is too technical
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It's B-class and part of geology and civil engineering
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It goes into much more detail with wikipedia

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It's a level 5 vital article
 * What are the article's strengths? It goes into a lot of detail on the different types of aquifers
 * How can the article be improved? More information on the sections related to aquifers like depth, subsidence, and saltwater intrusion. Also, some of the technical parts need to be fleshed out so it's easier to understand
 * 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's mostly well-developed, but could definitely use improvement

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: