User:KYsnowmaker/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: Snowflake
 * I chose this article because I have some expertise in this area as an atmospheric researcher.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it seems to do a good job.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, although the brief descriptions are blended into the paragraph and do not stand out.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It seems appropriately balanced.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Classification seems a little out of date and qualitative.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Some more content is needed for snowflakes on radar and represented in numerical weather prediction (NWP).
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, the article deals with the scientific description of snowflakes.

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?
 * The first reference is very suspect, but the rest seem appropriate.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources seem pretty good.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, except for the first one.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, there are a significant number of authors that are Asian.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I clicked on ten links, and they all worked.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is a good article in my opinion.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not observe any.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, but maybe the article could use another section on NWP and remote sensing.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, often with references.
 * 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?
 * The conversations seem constructive although sparse with some changes seemingly made without discussion.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * GA, WikiProject Meteorology, WikiProject Materials, etc.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There should probably be more conversation about changes, adding material to the article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Good article nominee.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Except for the first citation, the article is backed by good resources and presents a good overview of the topic without bias.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article could use further explanation about snowflake nucleation, remote sensing, and representation in weather models (NWP).
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article seems middle of the pack. The parts that are written are pretty good although some more sections are needed to completely cover the topic.

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: