User:Megthetrilobiter/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Surface mining

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Mining is a significant method of extracting material such as stone, minerals, etc. These are some of Earth's resources, and mining contributes to the reduction in availability of such material. This article looks informative and like it covers a lot of information.

Evaluate the article
The introductory sentence describes and defines the article’s topic. The lead section does not fully describe what information is included in the sections of the articles, and it could be more concise. It is detailed but also includes information which would work better in separate sections (e.g., information about surface mining in North America specifically, advantages and disadvantages of surface mining). I think the introductory sentence could be shorter, instead of it taking up the whole first paragraph; the first paragraph could include the description of surface mining, as well as a description of the article’s sections. The rest of the lead could include the rest of the information currently present.

The content is relevant to the topic; it describes the types of surface mining, as well as how, why, where, and when they are done. It also describes the environmental impact of each of the types/methods. Because the article isn’t about a topic which is rapidly being updated, other than potentially new methods of surface mining, it is up-to-date as far as I am aware.

The article is mostly neutral; but definitely delves more into the negatives of surface mining.

A lot of information is not backed up; “[citation needed]” is seen a few times in the article. The sources seem recent/current (e.g., one citation includes a table that includes information from 2020, 2021, and 2022), and includes a lot of academic papers and peer-reviewed articles. There is a diversity of authors, but I can’t fully tell if any are marginalised. A few of the citation links (both in-text citations and in the References section) do not work, though many do work.

The article is well-written; there don’t seem to be any grammatical or spelling errors, and it is very well organised. The organisation and flow make the writing easy to read and understand. The information could be more concise, but it is all readable.

The images are relevant to the information included, and they are visually appealing. Most of the images have good, descriptive captions.

There are multiple back-and-forths about if strip mining should be part of this Wikipedia page (“Surface Mining”). Some people also think that this page and the Coal Mining page should be merged, but that is a pretty unpopular opinion. The article is “level-5 vital” and is rated “Start-class”. It is part of the Mining WikiProject.

The article is strong in its flow and organisation, but it can be improved in its conciseness. It is moderately-developed; there are a few sections which need more information. Transport is mentioned in the lead, but there are two vague sentences on the topic in the article. The section on Remediation has a label saying it needs expansion.