User:LMNOP2020/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: Sustainable forest management
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I thought this topic would be interesting because I am interested in sustainability.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. It gives a definition.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes. The first paragraph lays out all of the major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes it was updated one month ago.
 * 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? No it does not deal with equity gaps or historically underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes. It mainly has factual statements.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

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. Most are in the 2000's.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * 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. It has many small sections.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes. Just one photo.
 * 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.

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 are different approaches to forest sustainability. This article is mainly to display how those approaches could arise.
 * How is the article rated? It is rated on the B-class. Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes it is a part of WikiProject Forestry.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It does not differ much. We have not been able to go over it much in class yet.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? There are many comments on the talk page about improvements but nothing about the status of the paper
 * What are the article's strengths? I think one strength is that it goes through sustainability in forest management in different countries, not just the United States.
 * How can the article be improved? I think that it could have given more approaches about forest sustainability.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think that the article is well-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: