User:LauraKJamison/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: (Energy flow (ecology))
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. This is my are of interest, the article I plan to edit. Evaluating it will help me with my process of editing later.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

The first sentence is well put together and accurately describes the topic. It is concise as well.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

No major topics are discussed in detail, the article skims lightly over the top of the topic. It has several bullet points that describe some levels of the trophic web, but not in any great detail.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

The article is the lead! It is really one block paragraph that skims over the subject, the first sentence has a good concise lead, but after that it is very general.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes, the content is relevant to the topic.


 * Is the content up-to-date? No, the article referenced is from 1988, and in the further reading the latest article referenced is 2004.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

A huge amount of content is missing, each subtopic needs to be explored in much greater detail. There are also a great number of articles relating to subtopics that can be explored in energy flow.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Personally I believe ecology and energy flow are vastly underrepresented, the interconnection of life is a vital part of our world and should have extensive information regarding this topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?

It appears to generally be neutral. However it only references one source, and that could be problematic.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, it doesn't appear to have any particular bias.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The article has very little information, so as a whole topic it is underrepresented. As well as it only having one article that is referenced. The topic needs further exploration.


 * 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? The source appears reliable, however is not accessible by public.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No, only one source.
 * Are the sources current? Not at all, 1988 is the source date.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No, one author and one paper refrenced.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The link leads to the article, however it is not accesible to the public.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It certainly is concise. The article is very light on information.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? no spelling or grammar issues.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It reads as one large paragraph, so it's not particularly well organized. The light overview of the topic is separated into bullet points explaining trophic levels.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

One image is used, and it has a detailed explanation.


 * Are images well-captioned?

Yes


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

It states its the users own work, so yes.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Only one, so it doesn't matter the 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?

Yes! That's why I chose it! Wikiproject Ecology and Wikiproject Limnology and Oceanography.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

In very little detail. The subject of energy flow is an in depth topic with a lot of detail in each subtopic, for example trophic levels.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?

"Needs additional citations for verification"


 * What are the article's strengths?

Has a strong start.


 * How can the article be improved?

Additional resources, more in depth information relating to each subtopic.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

It's is underdeveloped.

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: