User:Jmb15006/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) Biomagnification
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This article was chosen because of my interest in the topic and its relevance in the field of ecotoxicology. It was interesting to me that the current article was not fuller.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * Starts off with definition of biomagnification.
 * Only really alludes to "Processes" section
 * It alludes to abiotic transport of toxins. This should be noted that bio and abiotic transport are separate but still integral to biomagnification.
 * Last sentence needs work. Can toxins enter through other pathways besides direct ingestion?


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 1) Article's content is relevant but seems to be missing detail.
 * 2) The section that cites "Current Status" needs update. One of the "current" papers it sources is from 1994.
 * 3) I would add content: link to bio transport, link to bio focusing and bio dilution (including a note on metamorphosis), add case studies such as poisoning in Minamata Japan, log Kow values, notes on environmental partitioning, detoxification, lipophilicity, modes of excretion. I would also add a section on affects to bioaccumulating organisms and affects that these organisms have on surrounding environment.
 * 4) No. Information regarding bioaccumulation in human food sources could be added. For example, cultural consumption of salmon by native populations.


 * 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?
 * 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

 * Guiding questions


 * 1) The article seems, for the most part, neutral.
 * 2) There are many claims that sound too confident. The author(s) utilize words such as "most" and "probably."
 * 3) I think there is more underrepresentation of most topics.
 * 4) There is no persuasion in this article. It is a fact based scientific article describing certain processes that occur. There is not much room to even consider persuasion or bias.


 * 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
 * Some facts seem to be missing cited sources.
 * I believe that many articles have been overlooked, especially when detailing the nitty gritty.
 * Some sources may be out of date but this has been noted in any writing that has occurred as a result of these.
 * The spectrum is diverse. I am not sure about historically marginalized individuals. This seems like it would contain more bias. Also, one source was from an EPA official page.
 * No direct URLs are listed. I did however look up some of the articles which are presented on online databases.


 * 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 written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * Some sentences are difficult to understand. I think the article could benefit from shorter and more concise writing.
 * Some grammar errors and weird sentence structure.
 * Sections are well broken down but I think they could benefit from sub-sections or just more division in general.


 * 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
 * Yes, images are provided.
 * There could be more extensive captioning of a couple of images.
 * Not sure? How would I tell?
 * I think there should be more integration of images in the actual text, not just along the margins. They could be placed in sections that relate to what they display.


 * 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
 * There is extensive talk about what could be added. This talk page seems much more inclusive than the article itself.
 * It is rated a "start-class" to a "mid importance" article. This is part of our Wiki EDU project :) It is also associated with "WikiProject-" Medicine, Ecology, and Environment.
 * Much more neutral.


 * 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
 * Overall I think this article needs more information overall and an update to the language used in presenting current article information.
 * Stays neutral.
 * More images and case studies.
 * Underdeveloped


 * 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: