User:Juliaczar/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: Microplastics
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because the topic is something I am very interested in learning about microplastics. The article is quite long because the topic requires a lot of background information, but there are sections that are underdeveloped and need more detail.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead does a good job of introducing the article and the topic in a concise, general way. There is not a description of the article's major sections. All of the information provided in the lead is relevant to the article and allows for the sections to dive deeper into specific information mentioned in the lead. There might be a little too much information on classification based on origin. This is described further in the next section, so the information becomes a little redundant.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
Most of the content in the article is relevant to the topic. I found some section too detailed and felt that they should simply reference the Wikipedia pages on those subjects instead. For example, there is a section on sewage treatment plants that describes the process of treating sewage. The entire first paragraph seems excessive, and that section should just start with the second paragraph with "primary" and "secondary" treatment linking to those particular articles. Also, the section on nanoplastics seems to refer to a different class of contaminants, which might warrant it's own Wikipedia page. They have a different definition, in terms of size classification, than microplastics, so it would make sense to break this off into its own page.

One large area that could use improvement is the absorption of contaminants to micoplastics and how that impacts marine organisms. Throughout the article there are random sentences in several sections briefly discussing a contaminant absorbing to a microplastic particle, but it would make more sense for all of this information to be in one section. They discuss impacts of the contaminants absorbed to microplastics on humans, but the marine organism section mostly focuses on physical properties of microplastics in marine environments and ingestion of the particles building up in the bodies of organisms.

There is information about relevant topics and newer discoveries. However, there have been recent reports on atmospheric transport of microplastics to remote locations. Some of this research should be mentioned and cited since it is quite relevant. There is no acknowledgement of equity gaps in the sense that they do not indicate whether underrepresented minorities are disproportionately impacted by this problem. Since there is a lot of plastic waste washing up on the shores of poorer countries, this is something that would be worth mentioning.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of the article is quite neutral. Most of the information is presented in an unbiased way to simply disclose the information that is relevant to the topic. In the policy and legislation section they mention that environmental groups are targeting corporations to push them towards limiting or eliminating their use of microplastics. This statement is not necessarily biased, and is cited, but it represents the viewpoint of the environmentalists instead of the corporations. As an environmental scientist, I read this and agree with the idea that microplastics are harmful. After reading the information provided in this article, I would think that even people belonging to corporations manufacturing these contaminants would would also agree.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources that are provided appear to be reliable. Upon reading through the article, I found myself clicking on several sources to further investigate the information that was provided in the article. All of the links worked and were cited from reliable sources and journals. There does not appear to be a strong bias favoring sources from a particular person or group of people. Areas where the information has not been cited have a footnote indicating that a citation is needed in those sentences. There are a few articles on the subject that I think should be incorporated based on very current research, but I imagine it takes time after a study is released to make sure the information is reliable before integrating it into the article.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is well written and relatively easy to read. It is not particularly concise, but in most cases the descriptions and information provided are appropriate. The sections it is broken down into help guide the reader through the many relevant aspects of this topic. I did not find any grammatical errors or spelling errors upon reading the article. There is a suggestion on the article page that a portion of the article should be split into its own article titled Environmental Impacts of Microplastics. This would help cut down the length of this article and would allow for further elaboration on specific environmental impacts.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
Several images are used to display microplastics found in different forms from different locations. They help to visualize what the particles look like and where they might be found. The images are cited to credit the original source. The captions are concise and do a good job describing the images. The images could be laid out better. For example, the photo of microplastic fiber is near the lead, but should be near the clothing sources section. Also, the image of the great pacific garbage patch is nowhere near where it is mentioned in the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
This article is part of WikiProjects Polymers, Environment, Water, and Technology and is rated C-class. The to-do list for this articles includes updating information on microplastics in drinking water and rainwater. Some people think there needs to be development on the topic of toxic chemicals absorbing to microplastics, which is a topic I plant to explore and add. Other topics like atmospheric transport and microfibers are discussed. Someone has proposed a new lead and organization to the article, which includes an entire section on endocrine disruption that does not currently exist in the article. This topic is not something we have discussed in class yet.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is quite well developed in terms of providing detailed background information on the topic. The article covers the major sources and definitions of microplastics. It could use some work in terms of more recent developments like absorption of contaminants and new mechanisms of environmental transport. There are no huge sections completely left out, rather some sections that need a little more attention and detail.

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: