User:JustJordan/article evaluation

= Article Evaluation = A place for me to evaluate different Wikipedia articles for the purposes of my wikiedu course

Fossil fuel article
Fossil fuel:

This article is listed as a level 3 vital article, meaning it is of relatively high importance (top ~1000) which should have correspondingly high quality articles. This article also is listed as being B-class, which means that it is reasonably well written but could use improvement and would not be suitable/useful for researchers to gain information from. It is of interest to 5 WikiProjects, with ratings ranging from C to B class, high to top importance.

Last sentence of intro section, relating to "global movement" towards renewable energy is not cited. Same for information about coal fields typically dating to Carboniferous period in Origin section. Same for natural gas being source of helium in Importance section.

Link to tar sands article redirects to oil sands - tar sands is often a polarizing term, and less commonly used now than it used to be. This could lead to a less neutral feeling in the article.

Under Reserves section, comment about percentage of primary energy produced by fossil fuels in 2002 is not cited, and also does not say what region of the world it is referring to with that statistic.

First sentence under Limits and Alternatives is a horrible run-on sentence. Also, biofuel is more promising according to whom? That paragraph implies that biofuel is more important than the rest of alternative energy combined, which is not a neutral position, and not cited.

Under Environmental Effects, there is a large block quote from Environment Canada. It would be better if this could be appropriately paraphrased. Below that quote is a discussion about a scientist's work, where it mentions "this year" - what year was that? Where the US EPA regulations are mentioned, it would probably be worth investigating to see whether any of the regulations have been changed under the Trump administration. The last paragraph could use grammatical improvements.

The Economic Effects section appears to be heavily biased towards discussing only the costs of fossil fuels, without including the economic benefits that many countries continue to experience. This section should probably be expanded.

Reference number 9 (among others) does not give title of book without clicking link. https://books.google.ie/books?id=DHKDBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA278&lpg=PA278&dq=fossil+fuels+depleted+much+faster+than+renewal&source=bl&ots=DCef6lEBXr&sig=HRFYnyQw1COFPBekmu__ZtONtNM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi59d22r_7RAhVLGsAKHV47COQQ6AEINTAE#v=onepage&q=fossil%20fuels%20depleted%20much%20faster%20than%20renewal&f=false

Induced seismicity article
Induced seismicity:

This article is listed as C-class and of mid-importance to two different WikiProjects (Earthquakes and Geology).

It could use editing for grammar and flow. I have added a citation and a link to the seismic magnitude scales page under the hydraulic fracturing section.

There is a section titled Nukes, which is very informal and imprecise - it would be useful to improve the tone and wording for this section (including the header).