User:Kylew612/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.


 * Challenger Deep: (Challenger Deep)
 * It's related to the Challenger expedition article we read last week.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it establishes the Challenger Deep as the deepest known point in the Earth's seabed and reports its depth along with methods of measurement
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Mostly, although it doesn't summarize the "Lifeforms" section
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Not that I can find, no.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead could be made more concise, but it's not overwhelmingly detailed.

Lead evaluation
The lead does a good job summarizing the article's content, although it could be more concise and should probably include a sentence summarizing the "Lifeforms" section.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, there is discussion of the physical characteristics of the Challenger Deep, the lifeforms present, and the history of exploration/surveying.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * It seems so -- the "Descents" section talks about the 2019 expedition and plans for future expeditions.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Not as far as I can tell.

Content evaluation
The article seems to have relevant, up-to-date content, with nothing missing.

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
Yes, the article appears to be generally neutral -- there do not seem to be any "sides" in this issue which could be over- or under-represented. A minor issue is the use of the phrase "incredibly good fortune" with no citation when describing the discovery of the trench.

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
Almost all of the facts in the article have a reliable secondary source. The sources are numerous and thorough, and relatively current (most are from the 2010s). The links appear to work.

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
The writing is clear and easy to read. I couldn't find any grammatical or spelling errors. The sections make sense in terms of organization, although the "Lifeforms" section should probably be expanded.

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
The images in this article are satisfactory -- mostly maps/charts and pictures of research vessels, which are all well-captioned. They do appear to adhere to copyright regulations. They are all quite small, however, and all placed somewhat awkwardly at the far right of the page. This could be improved with more interesting images of the trench itself, increasing image size, and reconsidering image layout.

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
The conversations in the talk page mostly deal with correcting inaccuracies or misleading content, and expanding sections not previously described in detail. This article is rated C-class in the projects Geology, Geography, and Oceans, and start-class in Micronesia. We haven't talked about this topic in class.

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, this is a very detailed, informative, and well-developed article. Some potential areas of improvement include reducing the length of the lead section, expanding the "Lifeforms" section, and improving the images used.