User:Joq Oliver/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Deep sea mining

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
The lead section is relatively short, not concise yet oversimplified in how the deposits are mined, yet the article goes into more detail later. If one would only read the lead section, they would think there is only one-way deposits are mine. The first sentence is well done, in my opinion, and allows the reader to get the face value of what deep-sea mining may entail. The content within the section gives the reader a taste of what is to come. The description of environmental impacts is the focus and should be cut back. The content is very relevant, and WikiProject Mining has to assign high importance to this article. The Contents section has only topics of relevance to the report, though the attention it gives to specific content, "Brief history" has more attention than others, and it can be argued that later information is not relevant to the section. The article's information on resources and mining need to be improved. There is little information in the Resources mined section; expansion of this section is necessary. A good idea to close gaps in the article would be to discuss the Extraction methods for each deposit type.

A great Wikipedia article should show a more consistent neural ton to the article. It seems that one or more of the editors may have taken a negative position or used the biases of the reference material used. This is seen many when seeking on the Ecological impacts and Controversy. The viewpoints are not even between negative and positives. The article also lacks how deepsea mining opens up a vast percentage of the earth's untapped resource and the effects this may have on the economy.

The Sources and References used in the article are not all academic and peer-reviewed publications and or scholarly books. There are some news articles and ones from websites. I would say that the out of the websites used somewhere ".org" and notable. It may not be the best Sources, but the facts to check out from what I saw. In "Brief history" uses a CNN article from November 11, 2020, to mention a notable achievement and quote a personnel part of the task. The article does need more academic Sources overall, but the sources used are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. I have checked ten random links in the References section, and they all are working. The order of the section seems sensible, and the writing quality is clear and sound. It was well thought out with good sentence structure. The design of the "Resources mined" and "Extraction methods" sections can be rethought out, possibly using subheadings for each of mineral deposit types and Extraction methods.

As of the last read, there were no Images, which could enhance one's understanding of the topic of the Content point. An Image of Polymetallic nodules would go a long way in improving the reader's understanding of what some of the resources may look like, as well as their natural setting. On the talk page, it shows that the article is part of WikiProjects, as mentioned before, that includes WikiProject Engineering, WikiProject Mining and WikiProject Oceans. All are Rated C-class needed improvement with important waited on the mining.

As I'm no expert on Wikipedia, I can't say with Certainty, though from my outlook, it is a very underwhelming talk page with the last activity in 2018. There is very little in it with no Active discussions or any with past ones with some depths. There is no Direction in contact needed to fill missing gaps.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Respectfully the Lead section could use some work, the opening sentence is strong and get