User:Klgottlieb/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Toxic waste dumping by the 'Ndrangheta

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because the matter being discussed is a huge risk to our environment. This matters because the Earth is our home and we should be taking care of it, not dumping toxic and nuclear waste into the oceans.

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.)

Lead Section:


 * There is an introductory sentence that is concise and clearly describes the article's topic and where it is going. However there is information in the lead that is not later written about.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes it does, however it also has information that is not included in further sections.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think it is overly detailed because the entire second paragraph is not discussed further in the article.

Content:


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * I would say that this article is not up to date because it says that it was last edited in 2023, but the last source listed was published in 2016.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * In the lead the authors talk about the EU, but then does not have a subsection for it later in the article, os that is possible information that could be added.

Tone and Balance:


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article does remain neutral. I feel like there is no debate in this article because they should not be dumping waste.

Sources and References:


 * 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?
 * 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.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and Writing Quality:


 * 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:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, there are no images.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Talk Page Discussion:


 * 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:


 * 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?