User:Jonnyyye533/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: Renewable Energy Certificate (United States)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * It pertains to one of my sources in my research paper.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it is a basic definition of the topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the lead includes a lot of general information that explored further in the rest of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is a bit overly detailed; it really delves into the way the certificates are traded in the lead, when it could be a separate section.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all of it is.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * It's rather up to date, there could be more up-to-date sources, as most of them are from 2010-2015
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * no

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, it mainly just states the facts.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * no
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, many of the sources are governmental based sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, considering how it is a policy, governmental sources are thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some of them could be updated, because there are no 2020 or 2019 sources. So, not really.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

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?
 * No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I feel like they pushed a lot of the information into the lead, they could have probably separated it out a little more, so readers can follow it more easily.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * no
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * A lot of clarifications, as some users are asking other users for more details.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProject?
 * It is rated "start class". And no, it isn't.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It doesn't

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It is a good start, but it needs more reliable sources.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is written well and it has a good amount of information.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It needs better sources to back up it's facts.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * If it gets better sources and is organized better, I would consider it complete.

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: