User:Joshvernaz/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:1,4-Dioxane
 * I chose this article because it was the contaminant of interest in the Superfund site I chose for Tuesday's activity.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The first sentence is as clear and concise as it can be considering that 1,4-Dioxane is a chemical.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead does not describe all of the article's major sections. Notably, it does not mention toxicology, but it is listed in the table of contents.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead does include information not present in other parts of the article. It mentions the color and the odor of the chemical.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise. It does not repeat information or give more information than would be wanted for a cursory glance.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * All of the article's content closely relates to the chemical.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Some references are from the 1960s and 1970s, but most are from recent sources. The references to papers published in the 1960s and 1970s are for supplemental information to the main content.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I do not see any content that does not belong. I'm certain there is missing content, but I don't know enough about the topic to know what is missing. It gives me enough information about the chemical to answer my questions.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article does not deal with an equity gap. It does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article does not attempt to persuade the reader, because there are no positions to be taken.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All facts in the article have a reference that does not appear to be biased.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Of the sections of the article, the sources are thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some scientific articles were published long ago, but there aren't many instances where the same experiment is repeated and published, unless to discount the work of the original researchers.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors. The sources are textbooks and scientific articles, where there has historically been underrepresentation of groups.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The few links I tried work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is well-written. It is concise, provides the source if I want more information, and is easy to read. It answers the questions I have.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are not 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 article is well-organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article has an image that helps understand the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The image is well-captioned and adequately describes the image.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The image does not seem to adhere to copyright regulations, because the source is not referenced. It looks like a graph that could have been made by anybody, so it might not have been taken from any published work.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There is only one image in the main content, but it is placed in a visually appealing place.

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 no conversations about how to represent the topic. The conversations are asking questions which answers were ambiguous in the article, but the conversation is not about how to represent the topic.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is a level-5 vital article in Science. It is part of the Occupational Safety and Health WikiProject.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not talked about 1,4-Dioxane specifically in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article seems thorough in the information that is presented.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's strengths are the completeness of the chemical information and the conciseness of the information given.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can be improved with more pictures in the content. Notably, a picture in the Synthesis subsection would be helpful.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article seems underdeveloped because I'm sure there is more information about 1,4-Dioxane published than what is given.

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: