User:Lindemme/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: Alkalinity (Alkalinity)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article to evaluate because it is rated as a c class article and is related to Limnology. I thought it would be a good article to do this exercise on, as it may contain problems that could be improved.

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 sentence tries to describe the topic of the article but is a little confusing. The lead does not include a description in the paragraphs of the sections that are covered in the article, but it does have a contents that has the sections planned out. The lead does have links to other articles and contains a fair amount of information. The lead is short and concise but a little confusing as it defines alkalinity multiple ways.

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

Content evaluation
Yes the content presented seems relevant to alkalinity. All the sections some how are related to alkalinity though some seem more important than others. It was edited as of yesterday and is being worked on to be improved. Some of the sources seem outdated thought. All the content seems to belong, although some is not well explained. There does not seem to be any missing or incomplete content. No it does not deal with equity gaps.

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 article seems pretty neutral on the topic and tries to stick to history and facts. The article is not persuasive, it just tries to help the reader understand what alkalinity is. There are no overstated or understated viewpoints or bias.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Most the links seem like they are from reliable sources such as peer reviewed articles or organizations like the EPA. I think some of the sources are dated and they could find more up to date sources, but overall I would say they are pretty thorough. Some sources are current and some are not. They seem to be from diverse authors, but there does not seem to be any historically significant ones. Most of the links work but some are outdated like the one to the EPA "Total Alkalinity".

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
I think the article could definitely be clear and written for a border audience. It seems based towards a more scientific audience. There was a few grammar things that could have been changed but overall it was not too bad. I think it is broken down well but some of the sections are not necessarily needed to understand the topic. For example, someone could understand alkalinity without the sections "Detailed descriptions" or "Theoretical treatments".

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 has one image that helps to see how alkalinity is distributed throughout the oceans. I think the image could have a more descriptive caption. I think it does adhere to copyright regulations. The image is not very visual appealing. The image is pretty small and off to the side.

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 are some talks on editing. Its rated a c class article. It is part of the Wikimedia project and the Limnology and Oceanography project. We have not covered this topic yet in class.

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 overall status is it needs some editing and reviewing. Its strengths is that it provides lots of details about alkalinity and has some decent sources. I think it could be improved by cutting out the extra details and being clear in the way it is written. Also finding more up to date sources would be useful. I think it is pretty well developed but needs to be clearer and written for a more general audience.

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: