User:Legare.katie/Evaluate an Article

Evaluation of Wetland methane emissions article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Wetland methane emissions
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because I remembered it being mentioned in class as an area that could use more research on wikipedia. Upon looking at the article, I thought it could use more details and information.

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 lead was concise and the first sentence did a good job in articulating why the issue is of importance. The lead mostly focused on explaining methanogenesis and did not give any indication of what the rest of the article would be about, which was the natural progression of wetlands and controlling the methane emissions of wetlands. The lead is not overly detailed, but I think they could have chosen different areas to focus on in the lead. Personally, I think they should have used the lead to give a brief overview of the upcoming sections and added a separate, more detailed section about methanogenesis rather than explaining this concept in the lead.

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 sections that focused on pathways for methane emissions and controlling factors in emissions were good. They were well organized and included a balanced amount of detail. The content seemed to be up-to-date in these sections. However, the human development of wetlands section could use more expansion. The claims were very general, without much explanation. I would have liked to see more support for their claims with statistics, as well as some specific examples. Also, the article did not mention where wetlands are located or how much area they cover. I think this information would be helpful, including a map if possible.

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 did a good job of maintaining a neutral tone. Most of the sentences were solely focused on the science, and there were no hints of a hidden agenda.

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
The links worked and the sources seemed to be reliable - most were published papers. It may have been a little out of date since most of the sources were from the early 2000s. Not all of the facts were backed up with a citation. A couple of times, there was a fact with no citation afterwards.

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 sections were distinguishable, but I would have liked to see an additional section for methanogenesis, which was mostly elaborated on in the lead. I did not see any spelling or gramatical errors, although the language was sometimes a bit too informal and choppy. They did a good job at keeping the paragraphs short and concise.

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. It included an informative caption. I think the article would have benefited from more images, especially in the pathways section.

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 only thing on the talk pages were some final edits made by one person. There were also some links to wiki sites that are dedicated to revising and evaluating wiki articles that are concerned with environmental topics. These links were useful because they showed people who were interested in editing this article how to find other articles about similar subject matter that need editing.

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
I would say this article is fairly well developed. It has a pretty good format and structure, and is not overly wordy. However, I think it could use more details in some sections, especially in the section about human development affecting wetlands. I also think it should be revised to make the lead a bit more of an overview and the methanogenesis information should be shifted down to its own section. Also, more images would make the article more engaging and easy to understand.

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: Talk:Wetland methane emissions