User:Kmvsetecka/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
1815 eruption of Mount Tambora

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 a random article on Wikipedia that was of interest to me. The article discusses a powerful eruption in Indonesia that occured in 1815.

Lead
Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, explains the topic and what to expect from the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, but there is a contents box.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise and not overly detailed.

Lead Evaluation

Content
Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes it is.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, there are sources included from this year.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article adressed the people that were affected in the aftermath, but did not specifically say indigenous people or other groups specifically.

Content evaluation

Good well rounded content that informed the reader on the event thoroughly.

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? There is one section called "Effects of Volcanism" and it only contains three sentences, which may have been combined elsewhere or elaborated more.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?No.

Tone and balance evaluation

One area could have had more content but other than that the balance was good.

Sources and References
Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes, there are sources from 1816- 2022
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Unclear
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

There was a good variety of sources that had links that worked. The sources were reputable.

Organization
Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the article is clear and easy to read
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes the article is organized, I think volcanic history could have been included of the location.

Organization evaluation

The organization was good overall but could have added a couple more sections.

Images and Media
Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, there is four different images in the article. These allow the reader to see a map of the location where the volcano is.
 * Are images well-captioned?Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?Yes

Images and media evaluation

Good media given that the eruption occured prior to film.

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 is some conversation occuring on the talk page, but it overall does not seem friendly. There is a sentence about climate change "agenda" being in the article and talking down about content written.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is part of four different projects, volcanoes, geology, indonesia, and disaster management. The article is rated in different categories of high importance, low importance, and top importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation

The talk page could have been friendlier towards others.