User:Jacksoac/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: USC Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I'm interested in environmental work, and I go to USC

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?
 * not really, some are mentioned in passing but could be more highlighted
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * yes, the lead talks about the USC sea grant program, while the article only mentions the sustainability prize
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * it is a little too concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * yes, it is focused on the history and leadership, which doesn't quite match up with what is outlined in the lead, though.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * for the most part, though it is missing some small details (like Todd Bauer being Co-Chair)
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * it does not mention the National Sea Grant Program after the lead, and it does not talk much about the research done.

Content evaluation
What is there is good, but seems to have a different focus than the lead, and does not highlight well the actual work done at the institute.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * the focus is heavily on the leadership, and it could use more student perspectives
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

Tone and balance evaluation
focus is mainly on leadership and history, should focus more on work being done

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * the history, current leadership, and past leadership sections are all under sourced.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * the majority of sources are from within the school in USC that manages the institute, though it doesn't seem there is much other literature outside of USC.
 * Are the sources current?
 * they all are from the past couple of years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

Sources and references evaluation
in general could be more rigorously sourced, though this may be a result of the lack of second hand sources on the institute.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * not that I have found.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * the sections are clear, but do not match what is highlighted in the lead.

Organization evaluation
overall good, but needs to match the lead.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * just one, the logo of the institute.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * the caption is the acronym for the institute, could be more clear.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * decently, it is at the beginning of the topic and fits well with the lead.

Images and media evaluation
needs more images than just the logo

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * there is no conversation in the talk page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * the article is Start-Class, Low-importance, and is part of WIkiProject California, and supported by Los Angeles area task force.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * non-applicable.

Talk page evaluation
needs contributions to explain intent of article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * a good start, though could be refined.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * all of the information is correct, and sourced directly from the institute.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * additional information about research done, more images, more diverse sourcing, and most importantly matching the organization of the article between the lead and the content.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * slightly underdeveloped.

Overall evaluation
either needs to be rethought, or have more information added to closer match the good lead already written.

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: