User:KRose4/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: Pluton
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. -It is a pretty basic and important topic in volcanology that is not covered too well in this wiki page.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Somewhat, although it could use some improvement.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is fairly short, but includes some information that might go better in the body of the articles

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Mostly, yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? More detail could be added
 * 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
 * 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, there are a lot of missing citations
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There are only a few references; more could be added.
 * Are the sources current? Most are from the early 2000s or 2010s; only 1 from the past few years
 * 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? Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? There are a few spots were the wording is weird and could use some improvement
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Somewhat, could use some additional organization and sections

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Discussions about the variability in definition of pluton
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Listed as a level 5 vital article in Science, Earth Science and is a stub. Part of the WikiProject Geology and is a start article with mid level importance
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It needs quite a bit of improvement
 * What are the article's strengths? Some good images and information about how plutons are categorized
 * How can the article be improved? More in-text citations and references. Rewording of certain sections
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Underdeveloped, needs more information

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: