User:MarshNak/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: Anthropocene (Anthropocene)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. - Chosen due to relation to major of biology. I've heard of this topic but do not know much and want to learn more.  It's exciting to imagine the creation of a new geological epoch.

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? Not really... Just more clarification on what the Anthropocene is.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? There is a lot of jargon with the names of geological societies and commissions that makes it somewhat hard to read.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, all of the information relates to the topic in some manner.
 * Is the content up-to-date? As far as I can tell.  There were not any glaring things that were dated or idiosyncratic.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Nothing extreme.  There was some repetition in one segment.  A few sentences seem somewhat superfluous, but overall all the content was in it's proper place.

==== Content evaluation: I learned while reading the article. The content was relevant, informative and well presented. A small amount of repetition in one segment and more detail could possibly be added to some segments. ====

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Any opinionated claims are cited to another individual, and most of those have counterpoints or another opinion given.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? It seems like the various viewpoints of scientists are equally represented.  The critiques of the term are limited to a short section at the end of the article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.  Any argument is cited and counterpoints and other views are shown.

==== Tone and balance evaluation: The article remains impartial on a topic that seems somewhat controversial or argumentative. Various viewpoints an the arguments supporting them are presented with equal weight. ====

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most sentences and paragraphs are accompanied by citations. One section (Homogenocene) lacked a citation for the first section.   All in all the article's information was cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?  The sources range a wide collection of scientific journals and published books.   A few sources from the news are incorporated.
 * Are the sources current? For a scientific topic the sources appear quite up to date.  Papers from as recent as 2015 and multiple sources from this year.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links I checked all appeared up to date.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Other than the somewhat choppy opening, the article flows well.  It is helped immensely by the organization of the various headings and sections which keep the reader on track.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not notice any glaring grammar or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.  The structure of the article is one of the strongest components.  It makes the article easy to follow.

==== Organization evaluation: One of the strongest aspects of the article, the layout and organization guides the reader to help understand the flow of information. The sections and sub-sections keep the reader on track and enable better comprehension. ====

Images and Media
Guiding questions:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are three images in the article and two of them are timelines. The one image helps visualize a topic mentioned in the article.  Both timelines are good at visualizing the various eras, but clunky and difficult to read.
 * Are images well-captioned? The first image of the Trinity Test is fine.  The timelines could use more background (maybe a sub-caption) and clearer labeling.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I'm not sure exactly how to check.  The first image has a broken link attached.  The other timelines are cited, but might be created specifically for Wikipedia.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? It no masterpiece.  The time lines are a bit bland and pushed to the side.  A few more images could really make the article more appealing.

==== Images and media evaluation: With only three images, the article could use more visuals and pictures. Those that do appear are bland and difficult to read. I think this is one of the weaker points of the article. ====

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 discuss updating of links and addition of sources.  There is also a discussion about merging various article topics into one page.  Updating older sources with new information.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is a part of the WikiProjects Geology. It is rated as a Start-Class article of Mid-Importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This topic has not yet been covered in class.  I wasn't aware of how specific to class our chosen article was supposed to be.  I picked a general topic that interested me, I hope this is adequate.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * What is the article's overall status? The article is classified as a Start-Class on the talk page. It has a lot of good information that is all cited, but there is room for more information and updates.  I don't think I would consider it Start-Class, but I have no experience rating the class or status of articles.  I learned a lot while reading the article.
 * What are the article's strengths? I believe the organization and layout of the article is one of it's strong points.  It makes everything easy to follow.
 * How can the article be improved? More images and pictures would be useful.  Some sections are rather thin in information as well.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is slightly underdeveloped.  Information on the topic may be somewhat scarce, but more meat to some sections would aid immensely.

==== Overall evaluation: All in all, the article does a good job of laying out and explaining the topic. By organizing the article in an easy to follow template the reader can follow along without getting lost or confused. The information presented is cited and up to date. It could be improved by the addition of more images and updating and addition of more information as it becomes available. ====

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: