User:JessicaKoudys/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: Freshwater acidification
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate:

- I've always been interested in the changes that occur in water bodies. I also think that this topic is relevant to our class material because we learning about earth cycles and how everything is connected. For example, the breaking down of rocks in lakes will affect the composition of that body of water.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

- The first sentence clearly states what ocean acidification is. It is concise and to the point.

- The lead paragraph manages to briefly include all the articles major sections, although more detail on what the sections include could be added.

- Most of the information in the lead is included in the article but there is a part about acid rain that isn't brought up again deeper in the article. The author could add more detail on this in another section.

- The lead is concise with relevant details as an introduction to the topic.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? Additional content may be necessary.

- Yes the article's content is relevant to freshwater acidification. The author does a good job at listing the causes of acidification and the differences between freshwater and ocean water acidification.

- The content of this article could be updated. There are many sources written before year 2000. In my opinion this is out of date and the other should stick to resources from year 2010 onwards.

- I think that additional content on each topic may be necessary. The author is very brief with each topic and could add more detail. I think that the author should expand on the harmful effects on water acidification on marine life.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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 favour of one position or away from another? No

- Yes this article is neutral as it doesn't portray a bias. The author states facts.

- Perhaps the author could appear to be against freshwater acidification because they only list the harmful affects and no positive affects.

- Viewpoints on each section are equally represented minus affects on marine life.

- I think that the article could persuade the reader against acidification because the author states facts that negatively affect the planet.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

- Most facts are backed up from a reliable source, but there is one source that's a website which is not peer-reviewed. This is not a proper source.

- Yes the sources are very thorough. Most sources are academic articles that go into detail about one specific topic relevant to the material.

- No most of the sources are not current. They range from years 1994-2011.

- There are no links.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

- The article is well written and easy to follow along. There are a few sentences are run-on sentences that could be split to make it easier on the reader.

- The article has no grammatical or spelling errors.

- Yes the article is well organized into sections reflecting the main causes of freshwater acidification.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? 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? Yes

- There are four images included in the article and they all do a good job at enhancing the readers knowledge on the topic, yet they are well spaced apart to not distract the reader from the body.

- Each image is captioned well.

- Yes all images adhere to the copyright regulations. The images are posted on creativecommons.org which allows photo sharing.

- They are well spaced out and don't take away from the body of the reading. They are also not too big or too small.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Previous talk suggested more peer review
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? No
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Specifically talks about freshwater, but in class we talked about general water sources.

- Behind the scenes on this topic, the last author expresses that there should be more peer review on this topic. It has only been updated twice.

- This article is not part of any wikiprojects. I can't find the information on how else it is rated.

- Wikipedia specifically talks about freshwater sources and acidification, but in class we have only talked about acidification of water sources in general and its affect on organisms that produce calcium carbonate shells. We haven't dived into much detail in class yet.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? no status
 * What are the article's strengths? well organized and sourced
 * How can the article be improved? more links
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? developed, could use additional editing

- Currently there is no status on this article, although I think it should include more peer reviews and perhaps expansion on some sections.

- The article is well organized and written. It is easy to follow and understand, with good use of images.

- The article would benefit greatly with the inclusion of links to other wikipedia pages. Many terms used are scientific/science related, and readers would benefit from links that help define these terms.

- Overall I think this article is relatively developed. I think it has a good foundation, but with the inclusion of links, peer reviewing, and expansion on sections, it could be great.

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: