User:Katherinetriplett/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: The Freshwater Trust
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because water conservation and saving the environment is important to me. This article allowed me to learn more about what the United States is doing to conserve water.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead gives a good introduction to exactly what the Freshwater Trust is
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No it only concludes a definition of the Trust and their purpose.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the information in the Lead is restated and expanded upon.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is very short and concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all information included is about the Freshwater Trust and what they do
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Some of the sources are fairly old, but it doesn't affect the accuracy of the information. The article could definitely be added to though.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The Projects section could be expanded on, but all of the content present belongs in the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No it does not. It does not mention anything that is underrepresented.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article is strictly informative.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No bias is not present in this article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, there aren't really any specific viewpoints presented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No it does not.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, most statements are supported by one of the referenced sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * All of the sources are thorough and relevant
 * Are the sources current?
 * There is only one current source, the rest are 5-10 years old.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes the sources come from a variety of places and authors.
 * 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?
 * The article is very concise and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not notice any.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I liked the organization of this article and how it included the history section first then proceeded to the projects the group has contributed to.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * The article does not include any images or media.


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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There were no conversations about this article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated as stub-class and is a part of 3 WikiProjects.
 * 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?
 * I would describe the article as just okay. It is of low importance.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article provides a thorough overview of all of the goals of the group.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article could elaborate on the projects done and maybe add a section about the overall impact and importance of the group.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would describe the article as slightly undeveloped. The information provided is thorough and accurate, but I believe there is more information that could be added.

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: