User:KCpoa19/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: Hadal zone
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I was looking for a page with plenty to discuss as far as what could be added or edited. This topic seems interesting because it is on the far end of the ecological spectrum from the euphotic zone which we have been focused on in the course so far.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Y
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No description besides the table of contents.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Y
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, but there is a sentence that does not relate to any other sections of the article, and there is description of the major sections. It is concise to a fault.

Lead evaluation
The lead is slim on content, including no summary of what is discussed in the article sections. For things that are mentioned here but not discussed further, these should be taken as cues for other sections to add.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Y
 * Is the content up-to-date? As far as I can tell, nothing is glaringly wrong.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The last sentence of "Definitions" section introduces the two categories of fauna in this zone, so it would make more sense to include this as the first sentence of the very next section called "Fauna".
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It does because the geosciences and ocean sciences has a history of inequity towards people that don't belong to the white, male dominant culture. This page mentions explorers from white European and American backgrounds, but makes not mention of the people important in explorations done by Japan and China. A great place to start would be to include the PI of the deepest manned research submersible, the Jiaolong.

Content evaluation
It has the base parts for the article that I would expect from a C-class page, but it seems to be treated as more of an after thought. This page could use more attention to the biogeochemistry associated with the fauna and more equitable discussion of hadal exploration.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


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

Tone and balance evaluation
Tone and balance are informative as they should be.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The entire first paragraph of "Fauna" has no references, so it is full of statements that need to be backed up.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There seems to be a wide range of sources used on this page.
 * Are the sources current? Y
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There are a good number of sources on the more recent Chinese expedition. The majority of the sources come from Alan Jamieson in a combination of single-author articles and as the co-author. The number that this person is an author on seem problematic.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Y

Sources and references evaluation
Citations and references need significant work to make sure that all facts have a source, and they need to come from more than a few figures in the field.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? For the most part, yes. Some definitions introduced here as comments in parenthesis could be expanded as a whole sentence to improve clarity and how the article reads.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? N
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The sections that are there are well defined and stick to the topic.

Organization evaluation
This article could just use more effort for expanding key terms used and including more about main points not reflected here.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and media evaluation
The images are fine. It could use the addition of pictures of some fauna found at these depths.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Someone wants to include a list of the 47 or so different environments, but without discussing, which would not add anything to the understanding of what the hadal zone is. Other discussions include nutrients, whether to mark as a stub, grammar, and organisms in high pressure environments. The nutrient discussion appears to be related to what I thought this page needs more discussion of.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C-class and mid- to high-importance for different projects. These are WikiProjects Oceans, Geography, Biology, and Limnology and Oceanography.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We have not discussed this in class, and I can't say if we will or not.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page for Hadal Zone only has the thread about nutrients for discussing content additions. Not much else useful going on there.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Definitely deserves the C-class rating
 * What are the article's strengths? Good base for discussing biogeochemistry from fauna section, and same with exploration for elevating underrepresented voices.
 * How can the article be improved? See above.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Underdeveloped to scattered development

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: