User:Koszutam/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: Euxinia
 * This article is about a topic already discussed in the class I am currently enrolled in so I feel comfortable reviewing it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The introductory sentence is concise and clearly defines Euxinia. The article discusses about half of the major sections of the article, falling short discussing causes and evidence of the events when they occur. It is a concise article that gives the reader motivation for continuing to read further into the article. Overall, a good, concise lead for the article which I like but some reference to to section on evidence would hit every major section.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The content in each section of the article is relevant to the topic. They have used the "Background" basically as a second lead with more details which is an interesting choice and they could be combined. The article includes the three primary topics I would expect for an environmental process -- cause, evidence, and examples (modern day). The content is up to date with a brief paragraph on how climate change could change how often Euxinic conditions are observed going forward in a warmer climate. The content of the article is relevant to the topic and there are not major wholes in the information provided,

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The overall tone of the article is neutral. The editors have used a lot of references to support their writing on the cause, evidence, and examples of Euxinia throughout with no language that is trying to lead the reader to a biased point of view on the topic. The one section that stood as maybe imbalanced was on how a warmer climate would increase these conditions with only a couple references to back the claims stated as facts on the many changes to the processes involved in producing Euxinic conditions. Overall, it is well balanced article.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


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

Sources and references evaluation
There may be 2 inactive links of 53 for this article which is pretty good. Since this is a topic on a natural process that has been and is actively studied by scientist, a vast majority of the article sources are from journal articles which is a reliable representation of this topic. The range of dates for these resources range date back a few decades and a few were written in the early half of this decade. This shows that there may be more information or there may be different perspectives on Euxinia from more recent work. Overall, this is a well sourced and referenced article.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
This article is well organized and well written. Like I have preciously said, they present the three topics I would expect for this topic and they do it by presenting more details that could increase how much the reader knows about Euxinia. Specifically, they present the chemical reactions that are necessary, including a nice diagram of all the things that contribute to the conditions generally.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
Like I noted above a contributor made a diagram of the Canfield Ocean modeling Euxinia. Another contributor created a picture showing different pigments from bacteria used as evidence for Euxinia having occurred. Every image was either original or fell under the Creative Commons allowing its use. One image used in conjugation with stating that these conditions occur in fjords is unnecessary since it is just showing a bunch of water fowl with a caption saying the Mariager Fjord smells like rotten eggs in the summer from sulfur. The image does not convey this really. Captions are concise and relate back to the topics in the subsections they are associated with.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
There are no conversations on the talk page. It is in four WikiProjects: Biology, Geology, Palaeontology, and Oceans. They each rate it on the B-Scale and is a low priority for their groups. I don't quite understand the final guiding question.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, I believe the article is good and represents the topic well with well supported references throughout. The strengths of the article is its approachability for a difficult topic to think about -- paleo-biogeochemistry when Euxinia was most prevalent. Like I have said, the structure of the article is great for answering the key parts of the topic and is concise in each one. It may lack very specific details in some areas but that makes it easier to read. Expanding the lead into the article would improve the matriculation of readers to the other sections of the article. The article well-developed but could use some updates on the most recent research.

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: