User:MantaRay540/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.


 * Yaquina Bay: (Yaquina Bay)
 * This article was created by former BGE students, and since our instructors shared it with us as a valuable resource for our lab reports, I believe it must be a good example of this type of effort. It also contains interesting and relevant information to the processes we are learning in class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The first sentence is a bit confusing, since it refers to an "estuarine community," which made me unsure if it was talking about the bay itself or a town. However, the lead paragraph provides a clear and concise overview of the bay and its importance.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No. The content panel does this effectively, though.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, such as an overview of nearby towns and their populations.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes! It provides a great overview of the biogeochemistry in the bay, as well as sections on history, economy, and coastal hazards.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes! Though I'm confused why they use the term "Indian" instead of a more current term.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't think so -- it feels comprehensive and appropriate.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, it doesn't.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, it doesn't feel that way.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I don't think so.
 * 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?
 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes! It makes a diversity of topics approachable -- though perhaps still at a bit of a technical, jargon-rich level for a general audience.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Nope, all looks good.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes -- the organization makes it very easy to navigate.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Kind of. There is a helpful upwelling diagram and photos of boats in the estuary (both historical and modern) and seals. Given the biogeochemical focus, more diagrams of this nature could be helpful.
 * Are images well-captioned? They are pretty minimal -- a bit more information could be useful.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, they all contain attribution information.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, though there could be more of them.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The "feedback from classmates section" contains useful advice on wording, subheaders, and pointers for keeping the perspective useful.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It's rated as a stub, and part of the WikiProject Oregon.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The perspective is broader.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Stub.
 * What are the article's strengths? Great organization makes it very easy to find what you're looking for and learn about a variety of topics related to Yaquina Bay.
 * How can the article be improved? I think more photos would be useful, and perhaps more discussion of the relevance of different biogeochemical parameters.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say it is well-developed, but that it would benefit from further fleshing 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: