User:Johnmichael0705/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: Melt inclusion
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I work with melt inclusions and this page does not cover analysis techniques, it merely mentions some properties that can be inferred from melt inclusions, but does not explain analytical procedures.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Not necessarily. The article gives a very simplistic description of a melt inclusion.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the lead does not mention any of the other sections in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the lead gives a description of a melt inclusion, but then does not come back to it in the sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is overly simplistic for the subject.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The content is relevant, however, it is lacking in detail and there are no inline citations.
 * Is the content up-to-date? No, the content does not go into current analysis techniques and there are no references to current published papers that state the new uses of melt inclusions in the volcanology field.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no content on analysis and the information that can be gained from melt inclusion analysis can be expanded. I'm not sure the "History" section is relevant.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, this topic does not fall into this category.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, the article does not take a side.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the article provides generic information related to melt inclusions, however, it needs to be expanded.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, the article is neutral, but the entire article is underrepresented in the information that could be provided from new studies and advances.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the article is written in a neutral tone.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, there are no inline citations.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There are no sources referenced to any papers, only two links at the bottom to individual homepages of two scientists in the field.
 * Are the sources current? No, the website links in the references do not reflect the current scientific papers that have been published on the subject.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No, there are only 2 sources and they are not diverse in any sense.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they do work, but do not link to published data, only two individual websites on the subject.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is easy to read and clear, however, that is due to the article being so short and not detailed enough. With no inline citations, it would be hard to know anything of value on the subject.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, there does not appear to be 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 sections that are provided are a good start for the main points, though the History section may not be needed.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article only has one image, but it is a good representation of a melt inclusion.
 * Are images well-captioned? The caption is informative, but not completely correct and needs to be fixed.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, they do.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There is only one image, so it is hard to say.

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 are currently no conversations happening about this topic, only a few edits have been made.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated as a stub and is part of two WikiProjects; Geology and Volcanoes.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The article needs a lot of work classified as a stub. Sections need to be expanded and citations included.  It is not rated similar to the good and featured articles we have seen in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The overall status is low, it is classified as a stub and listed as low priority on both WikiProjects. The articles needs a lot of improvement.
 * What are the article's strengths? The general information in the article is a good start and the sections that are set up are a good outline.
 * How can the article be improved? More information is needed in each section and in the lead. There are no citations, so this is necessary to replace the 2 referenced websites at the bottom.  Current published articles need to be mentioned and referenced.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is underdeveloped. There is basic information, but it needs to be expanded and more detailed.

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: