User:Karlaq025/Evaluate an Article

A good lead section define defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Questions about Lead:

1. Does the lead include an introduction sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article’s topic?

The article does start with a good lead describing what is underwater diving and explaining that humans can dive either with equipment or without it but then the article goes to into detail you get lost readying so i would narrow it down to a smaller sentence.

2. Does the lead include a brief description of the article’s major sections?

Yes the lead does include a brief description off all the point on what is underwater used for and how the human body is able to survive or handle cold temperatures.

3. Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn’t)

I feel like it’s article does go over the main important topics of underwater diving but a lead that i felt that was left out is the health and the danger of underwater, of how it can damage and effect the human body by doing it to much or by just being in the eater for to long.

4. Is the lead concise, or is it overly detailed?

The lead is over detailed but i would delete some topics and add some new ones or change the way it was written on some to interest the reader a bit more.

Content:

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Questions about Content:

1. Is the article’s content relevant to the topic?

The articles topics are relevant but  i would pick other topics to make the reader more engaged

2. Is the content up to date?

Yes the content is up to date but when writing about a topic i would write when it was founded just so the reader knows is a up to date information as well.

3. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

I would take off the recreational diving and add more details about the diving hazards, incidents and safety law then just adding real life examples of peoples experiences and cases.

4. Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia‘s equity gaps? No

Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes

The article does go into detail  about  the history about underwater diving, they did a good job

Tone and Balance:

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Questions about Tone and Balance:

1. Is the article neutral?

The article is neutral

2. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No

3. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented?

The viewpoint that i thought that was underrepresented is the health and hazards.One thing that i thought was overrepresented was what is underwater diving.

4. Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

I think its a minority viewpoints because i feel like underwater diving is so under looked

5. Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

I would say no it mainly talks about the information and history without actually giving us a side to pick on or a favor.

Sources and References:

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand when possible, this means academic and peer reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Questions about Sources and References:

1. Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?yes

2. Are the sources thorough – i.e., do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes

3. Are the sources current? Some are not

4. Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Yes

5. Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes

6. Are there better sources available such as peer reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

I would say there is I’ve found a few but its definitely not easy to find as underwater diving is so under looked.

7. Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, in some it took me a while to find where they got the information but i later on found out where they got it from.

Organization and Writing Quality

The writing should be clear and professional; the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Questions for Organization and Writing Quality

1. Is the article well written – i.e. is it concise, clear, and easy-to-read?The Article is easy to read as it stated and is in billed about what topic about underwater diving there about to touch on.

2. Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a few

3. Is the article well-organized – i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes but i would delete and add different things.

Images and Media:

1. Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes

2. Are images well captioned?yes

3. Do all images adhere to Wikipedia ‘s copyright regulations? No

4. Are the images laid out in a visually-appealing way? Yes

Talk Page Discussion:

The article’s Talk Page - and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there - can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn’t think of.

Questions for Talk Page Discussion:

1. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? This article is helping us in gaining more knowledge about underwater diving that we didn’t know about and it provide us in history on how it came to be very interesting and i would say a important factor is how underwater diving has hanged and bettered our medicine and research as well as technology.

2. How is the article rated? I would rate it a a 8

3. Is it a part of any wiki projects? Yes

Overall Impressions

Questions for Overall Impressions:

1. What is the article ‘s overall status? The articles overall status is that is well organized but needs  more interesting topics to gain the readers attention.Some grammar error but nothing to bad. I would add more pictures or add different ones.

2. What are the article’s strengths? The articles strengths i would say are a 7 out of 10

3. How can the article be improved? Yes it can be improved

4. How would you assess the articles completeness – i.e. is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

The article is well-developed and well written there’s just a few things a would change.

Examples of good feedback:

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms; the most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings and provide specific guidance on how the article can be

improved.

Which article are you evaluating?
My Article evaluation are good just some minor errors of grader and change a few topics to some more interesting to reword to make the reader more interested and add something to be in favor of. (Provide a link to the article here.) https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/pdf/Portal%3AUnderwater_diving

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.) I chose Article because it think underwater diving is a topic that’s so under looked going along that researchers haven’t finished exploring about 80% of the worlds oceans but decides that we over look how has water and our diving teams have made such in impact to the world for ramble collecting data,medicine,improving technology, finding new species, finding lost artifacts, healing improve our oceans population and more of all for food and to help and keep looking for ways to maintain our waters clean not only for us but for the animals.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The Evaluation to this article is going to be a 7/10 because i wasn’t so interested is some of the topics wanting to stop reading.There’s a few misspelled and grammar errors but noting to bad.I would change and maybe edit some topics to make it more interesting and even change and replace more pictures to give us more info and give us a better overview about the topic we are talking about.Although i liked how it was organized i would start by explaining the history first but so we can get a better understanding on how it all started.Besides that everything else looks good :)