User:Joshpablo/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 environmental quality parameters
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen this article because it is a scientific article and these types of articles need to be purely fact with no opinions or forms of persuasion.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes it provides the definition of freshwater environmental quality parameters in the first sentence and goes more in depth on what causes them and how they are measured.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes it provides a brief summary of what the major sections will talk about.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise and provides just enough information.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes it is.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes it was last edited on September 15, 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes the article is neutral.
 * 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?
 * No not a lot of the facts are sited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * I would say no most of the sources are from the 1980s and 1930s while the most recent is from 2017.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes the sources include experiments from scientists.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links do work but some sources do not have a link because it is probably a physical source.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Its not very easy to read because all the information is organized in a weird way where you are jumping from one thing to another instead of a flowing through it. its like reading through a list.
 * 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?
 * No the article is not well organized.

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?
 * Conversations on types of pollutants and how to reduce pollutants in water.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is related to environmental studies, this specific article is not part of any WikiProjects but the overall topic is.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * In Science class we usually build upon knowledge but here in this article its just spitting information in a not so orderly manner.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Ok but needs work.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It has evidence and provides a lot of information. Does not have any personal opinions.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Needs to be a little more organized.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * This article is just below well-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: