User:MJCato/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: Kaidun meteorite
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this article because I love reading about meteorites and suspect that the article for this one could use some critiquing.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Generally, yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It does not mention anything about the composition or type of meteorite, which I think would be useful in a couple words.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The recovery situation is not described anywhere else in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is definitely concise. possibly too much so.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * There is nothing that is irrelevant.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The suggestion that a meteorite is from Phobos, especially a CR, is questionable nowadays, but there is a scientific article linked as a source.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The 'compositoon' section could be beefed up, and a section specifically on the recovery could be useful.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No? Why does it have to?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * I would say all that is there is neutral. Even the 'Origin' section repeatedly says that the theory is suggested.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The Martian moon origin, being the only one suggested, is actually probably biased in that direction.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?
 * See above.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * While one view is over represented, it is not written in a persuasive way.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The entire 'composition' section is not cited. Also, source 4 and 5 are basically the same; a scientific article and a conference abstract about that article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources which they included are in themselves thorough. Plenty of scientific articles and conference abstracts.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes. Most are early 00s, but there is one 2017 paper.  This is how meteorite work usually goes; most of the work is done within a year of the fall or find.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Could probably use more authors; half of them are from the same person. That may be a result of few people studying the meteorite, though.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The sections that exist are well written and easy to follow.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I can see.
 * 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?
 * There is not an image, but I would be surprised if an image of this meteorite or a Russian military base existed under the image guidelines. Checked the commons.  Doesn't exist.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is only a post from a link-editing bot.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is a stub of mid-importance. Part of wikiproject Solar System and Geology
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There isn't much discussion.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It is a stub that could use some more work.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is concise and to the point. Sidebar is easy to read and has relevant information.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Needs more discussion of the find, composition (including sources), and more discussion on alternate parent body theories.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Poorly developed at this point. I may make it one of my articles for this course.

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: