User:Liliana.Guti/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: Environmental issues in the Niger Delta
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I came across this article after Friday's section, where we watched segments of a documentary covering the vast environmental and health consequences of oil flaring on the Niger Delta. I wanted to learn more about the issues since the 2008/2014 videos, and decided to evaluate this article in hopes of getting updated on the problem. The article is expansive and can be useful in terms of orienting my own article.

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 article very briefly summarizes the two main environmental of the Niger Delta. The lead begins with a brief explanation of the physical region A portion of the sentences are not sourced. The long quotation included from a 1983 report seems out of place, perhaps better suited to a later section. There also seems to be loaded language in the lead. The lead expands greatly on the physical region but fails to summarize the main sections of the article until the last paragraph, and all in one sentence.

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
Some content is not relevant to the subtitle in which they find themselves. For example, under the heading of causes of oil spills there are a few sentences speaking of the violence and deaths that have occurred due to oil siphoning practices. However, the majority of the content is relevant to the question of environmental issues in the region, and are organized well. I do not see any content on the role of the government or on activist movements/local grassroots organization surrounding environmental issues.

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
The lead includes words such as "Sadly" and "Regrettably." At times, the article will emphasis certain solutions that must be undertaken to in strong wording. The article concludes that more funding, less fishing, etc. must be instituted. Optional solutions, or contradicting arguments, are not presented. For example, the portion on depleted fishing in the area focuses on human overexploitation of fish, and less on pollution or other factors. Some attempts to place blame on oil companies without also balancing towards government actions make the article unbalanced. The article also has a banner stating that it is unbalanced and needs improvement.

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
There is a not insignificant number of sentences that are not properly cited. A few have the "need citation" phrase after them. There are upwards of 40 sources some as current as 2017, that are, from what I can tell, reflective of the academia surrounding the Niger Delta and the environment. These sources are current. I have clicked on a few links and was navigated to other Wikipedia articles and academic journals.


 * 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 article is well written. Although I times I wished for more information, it is significantly digestible, and presents clarification and definitions on terms that may not be inherently clear. The article does not have any glaring grammatical issues, and I could not find any errors in spelling. The sections divide the content into concise portions that are somewhat presented in the Lead. Addition of other perspectives, and a revised lead that is shortened and more focused on the topic on hand would benefit the article and make the organization more clear.

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 article includes no images, and therefore no captions. They would be useful in demonstrating the expansiveness of environmental issues in the region.

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
There has been significant chat on the lack of neutral tones and significant POV when it comes to the discussion of gas flaring. There have also been edits conterning the links added to the article. Some of the links have been blacklisted, meaning that there is a considerable level of doubt on the legitimacy of them. Someone also left a comment on potential images that could be added to the article, but nothing has been concluded. The article is rated C-class, Top-Importance and is of interest to three WikiProjects.

Wikipedia discussions really focus on neutral tones. While in class we practice making conclusions and pushing for solutions to issues, as well as assessing blame and critiquing the actions of key players, Wikipedia presents facts and is more about educating an audience, rather that persuading an audience to thinking a certain way.

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
The article could do with some improvements, specifically in the POV issues that can be found throughout. The Lead could be more focused, and some of the material found there could be moved to a new section focused on the area itself. Images can be added to further present the information.

The article does have an extensive list of sources that have been revised, carries a lot of content, and does provide a general overview on the topic. The article is slightly underdeveloped, in that it has a lot of content it presents and multiple sources, but can be developed further to have a more complete argument and neutral tone.

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: