User:IanR1969/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: (Talk:Biogeochemistry)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate- This article is related to my course.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

This article's introductory sentence describes the topic, but it is not very concise. The major sections aren't described in the Lead, although all the information in the Lead can be found later. The Lead is a touch too detailed to be read and digested quickly.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It describes the topic, but it is not very concise.
 * 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? No, it is all mentioned later.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is a little too detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions

The content included is relevant to the topic and up-to-date, but lacks some content in terms of the methods and recent advancements made in the field of Biogeochemistry.


 * 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

This article has appropriately neutral tone, no attempts at persuasion are made.


 * 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

All facts are backed up by good sources, though the coverage could be a little more thorough.


 * 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
 * The article is a little wordy at times but overall easy to read. The organization could use work: a smaller portion of the article should be enough to summarize early biogeochemistry.


 * 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

The included image is fine, but more images would be nice.


 * 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

Relatively few conversations are being had about the topic. It is rated as a start-article.


 * 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

This article is vital, but underdeveloped. It has good coverage on broad concepts, but could use some more specific content.


 * 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: