User:Lillianm55/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: (Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I want to evaluate this article to see what ecotoxicology information can be added to augment the public's understanding of the impacts of the coal fly ash slurry spill on humans and wildlife.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is fairly concise

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * How and what chemicals killed the fish in the clinch river?
 * Were fish the only wildlife impacted? If not, what studies have looked at this and what did they find?
 * How did the contaminants specifically move through the food chain and impact wildlife?
 * What (if any) legacy impacts has this slurry spill had on the ecosystem/ food chain/ the environment?


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * yes, but does not include specific scientific details about how these contaminants impacted humans or the ecosystem.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * the content about the legal timeline and the spill timeline is up-to-date, but is not up-to-date with our current understanding of ecotoxicology.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is content missing about the specific ecotoxicological mechanisms that the contaminants impacted the humans and the environment.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * There is a mention of environmental justice in the end of the article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * yes
 * 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, although there are a lot of newspaper article/websites cited; more newspaper articles than more reputable sources of information.
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes, current to the topic timeline.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * A lot of the references are newspaper articles rather than peer-reviewed journals or more reputable sources. However, the nature of this topic is largely timeline-focused, which would be more covered by newspaper sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes, all 5 links I clicked on worked.

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?
 * Not that I detected.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes, but I think an image or figure that demonstrates the ecological impacts of the spill could improve the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I think so
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, they are small, but I believe that's purposeful to not distract from the writing.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * People are heatedly debating how to interpret a scientific finding about how toxic coal fly ash is.
 * There have been multiple debates about what the article name should be
 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * GA, or good article
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The holistic timeline of the spill, including all legal actions and aftermaths
 * How can the article be improved?
 * This article can be improved by adding more information about how the contaminants impacted the people involved and the adjacent environmental systems, or the ecotoxicological information.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * This article has a very well-developed framework, it just needs one more angle (the ecotoxicology angle) filled out.

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: