User:Maofukada/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.


 * Nonpoint source pollution
 * I chose to evaluate this article because it relates to the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Developmental Goal (SDG) 6.

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? Yes, point source pollution.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise, because they do not introduce the last section of their article in the Lead.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, but the description of the Clean Water Act in the last section is not as relevant because it does not talk about nonpoint source pollution as a whole and does not relate as much to it.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, the last edit was on October 26, 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The paragraph about the Clean Water Act can be deleted since it does not support or is not as relevant to the topic as a whole.

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?
 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is not concise, but clear and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the sections are broken down well and makes it easy to read.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? Most are, but the first one is just "muddy water," which is very vague.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? External links have been modified. The definition of nonpoint source pollution has been debated about to make it more clear and distinct from air pollution versus water pollution.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is a C-class article. Part of Wikiproject Environment.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It supports the discussion we have had in class about water importance.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? C-class.
 * What are the article's strengths? Describing different examples of nonpoint source water pollution.
 * How can the article be improved? Distinction between water and air pollution. Making it more clear so that people who do not know about this topic do not get confused throughout the article.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? underdeveloped.

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: