User:Kimkev1/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: Clean Ocean Action
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose this article to evaluate because it is a stub and I value the act of cleaning up the ocean. Our world is becoming over polluted, especially our oceans. Therefore, I hope to discover ways to help our ocean as well as learn more about what people can do through a non-profit organization like Clean Ocean Action.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The Lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. However, the introduction does include a brief description of the article's major sections. The lead presents little information that is not present in the article. Overall, the Lead is not really concise because it does not present enough detail and insightful information about the introduction of the topic.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article's content is relevant to the topic but it is not up-to-date. There are several contents that are missing. This article does not cover Wikipedia's equity gap (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects).


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral and there are not any biased claims toward a particular position. The viewpoints are underrepresented. The article does not persuade any viewpoint or position against a person.


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

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The facts are not backed up by a reliable secondary source of information as there are no references/sources listed in this article. There are not current sources and links listed in this article.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is easy to read but is incomplete since it is lacking in more details/description/information about the particular topic. This article does not have any grammatical or spelling errors, however, the section is almost blank with no particular sections that reflects the major points of the topic.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article does include an image which is the logo of the Clean Ocean Action but does not entirely enhance the understanding of the topic. The logo is out of date but is well-captioned. The image does adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The logo is laid out in a visually appealing way.


 * 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

The Clean Ocean Action organization asked in the talk page on how to edit the page to match the actual logo and description of the Clean Ocean Action. This article is rated as Stub-class and is not a part of any WikiProjects. Since there was not a lot of engagement in the discussion of the Talk Page, it appeared to be that there was no motivation for Wikipedia users to take on a task of evaluating and improving on the topic of the article.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article's overall status is low but its strength is that it had a good two sentence introduction. The article can be improved by adding in more details and missing information such as Clean Ocean Action's history, types of programs, volunteers, funding, objectives, and more. I would assess this article's completeness as poorly developed.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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: