User:LeahIvie77/Evaluate an Article

User:LeahIvie77/Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Environmental Studies (Environmental studies).
 * I chose this article because I have always been interested in how the physical world works and how we as humans interact with our environment.

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
This article's Lead does a good job of explaining what the topic is about and gives the reader a nice summary. This article happens to be very short and does not have any major sections besides an small history section. For the limited amount of information that is given in this article I would say that the Lead is concise and well written. However, this Lead does contain quite a bit of information that this not present in the article. It mentions multiple areas within environmental studies, subcategories that influence environmental studies, and college degree programs for environmental studies. It is a good start but needs more work

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 for this article is lacking. The little information that is there is somewhat useful, however it doesn't provide much information about what this topic entails. After reading all of the content I am still left wondering what my topic is really about. The majority of the text in the history section (the only section) primarily talks about different universities, organizations, and journals related to environmental studies. The content was last updated in September of 2019, which was not very long ago. Overall this article does not put forth a lot of meaningful information.

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
This article is very neutral and doesn't seem to exhibit any bit of bias. There is no underlying theme or attempt at persuasion in any part of the writing. The article was well written for a general audience.


 * 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
In the Lead there are not as many citations as I would have hoped. There is only one at the end. With many claims about environmental studies that would probably not be general knowledge I think that the Lead needs more citations. The history section was well cited. The majority of the links in the bibliography work and are current. Because of the nature of the information in the history section the vast majority of the citations lead to college websites promoting their programs for environmental studies. Though these are decent sources for the information in the history section, it is not good that they make up the bulk of the bibliography.

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 very well written. It doesn't contain unnecessary words and is easy to read while still maintaining a professional voice. There are no grammatical errors and the information that was there was decently organized.

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
There was only one image that was neither a help nor a hindrance to the to the topic. Though it looks nice to have a picture on the page. The image is properly cited and is well captioned.

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
I actually really enjoyed reading the talk page. It gave me a lot of insights as why the article contains what it does. Environmental studies is a part of several wikiprojects including, Wikiproject Environment (which is classified as stub class and high importance) Wikiproject Education, and Wikiproject Universities. Environmental studies seems to be very specific with regard that it addresses how people interact with the environment. However, it is also very broad in the sense that these interaction extend to a huge variety of fields of work including psychology, humanities, geography, etc. It becomes hard to write about so many things and still have them all point the same direction. This becomes especially difficult when there is not a lot of content dedicated solely to an in depth explanation of environmental studies. Lack of strong credible sources was also addressed. It seems that finding more credible sources would help give the article more direction. I was pleasantly surprised at how critical wikipedians are of sources and ideas. It is very thorough and professional.

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 can understand why this article is classified as a stub and is a part of a wikiproject. It has a lot of potential and but really needs an in depth literature search and some more organizational structure because of the variety of topics that Environmental studies covers. Some of the strengths of this article are that it is well written and unbiased, and the editors on the talk page put a lot of effort into finding relevant information to add. One of the weaknesses I can see is that this topic needs broken down into smaller pieces. With a more narrow focus on a few aspects in the beginning, editors might be able to cover more ground which could then help lay groundwork for other areas within Environmental studies. I think that this article still needs more development.

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: