User:Jackaloping/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Arable land

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

The availability of arable land is a constraining factor on agriculture, making it an important global resource. Arable land is defined as land which can be ploughed and utilised for growing crops. As the human population continues to expand, the increasing demand it places on our ability to produce food will be reflected in the need for increase availability of arable land, or for more efficient use of existing resources. Consequently, information on arable land is required in a variety of disciplines, as the analysis of human usage of this resource is just as important as that of the resource itself.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

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?
 * 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? (It shouldn't.)
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Is the lead concise or is it 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?


 * Is the content up-to-date?

Generally, the content in the article is up-to-date, however there is one section in particular which has lapsed: The table of arable land distribution by country (discussed below).


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or 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?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

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.

As The data for this table was cited as being sourced in 2016, but utilises 2015-2019 statistics, indicating it has been updated without noting the new source. The original link to the data no longer works, and while the pre-2016 data can be verified through the additional Wayback machine link, where the table is listed as being last updated in 2014. This link should ideally be updated in order to show where the 2014-2019 data has been sourced from, and the table itself could also be refreshed with more recent data (if possible), as the trends exhibited have potentially changed in recent years. In looking for more data I have found this link, which seems to give the entire current dataset, but I am unsure whether there is a processed form available which would show the ranked version specifically.
 * 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?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources current?


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?


 * 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.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links generally seem to work, and for those that are no longer availablle there is a wayback

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?
 * 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

 * 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?

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.

The Talk page for this article is a little cluttered. Generally, users are sticking to the etiquette of using indentations to format the Talk page in the standard "forum style", however there are sections such as the 'cleanup tags' subheading where it is unclear as to whether the three non-indented comments are all individual comments under this subheading, or whether the second two are meant to be responses to the first initial comment under the header.
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

The subheadings within the talk page could also be more specific, as there are several which do not give any information on what is being discussed (e.g. "Untitled" and "A QUESTION". Similarly, the language used in some of the subsections (namely "bias dump") is somewhat unprofessional and is nonspecific in terms of the requests for changes, however this is generally in the oldest sections of the page, circa 2006-2010, with the more recent comments and additions being more precise and structured. This page is listed as being of interest to the following WikiProjects: Environment (High-importance), Agriculture (High-importance), Geography (Mid-importance), Soil (Mid-importance), Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team (Low-importance), Climate change (Low-importance)
 * 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

 * 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?

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting

The article provides a good overview of the concept of arable land, including a standard definition and etymology. There is a distinction made between the general definition and that used specifically for agricultural statistics, however the citation for this (citation [2]) does not obviously show this definition, as it is found in a pop-up on the page through clicking the "details" button on the graph, so could potentially be replaced with a different page where it is more clearly stated.

Layout

As a whole, the article is well laid out, with appropriate divisions for topics within the overall page, including sub-sections within these, as needed. This makes the article approachable and easy to digest, as it is easy for readers to skim through and identify the sections relevant to their interests/query.

For the subtopic of land degradation, the article makes use of a snippet from the Land Degradation article, giving a concise overview and linking it clearly for further reading.

Citations

The article has 19 sources in total, with a maximum of 3 being from the same organisation (the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), meaning it doesn't lean too heavily on one specific source and instead draws from a variety.

Talk Page