User:Mikabella95/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
●   Name of article: Anthropocene

●   Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. This article was selected for several reasons. It contains a thorough discussion on the issues involved in creating new geological epochs, based on human activity, as well as, information that identifies the reduced biodiversity of the Homogenocene as the 6th major extinction event. The term was coined 1999 by Michael Samway. There is also a discussion of extinction patterns.

Lead

 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The Lead does includes one sentence defining the Anthropocene and two background paragraphs.

●    Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the Lead does not include a brief description of the articles major sections. It includes the definition of the Anthropocene, one background paragraph explaining the steps that have been taken so far to make the Anthropocene an official geological epoch, and one paragraph summarizing the possible starting dates for the Anthropocene Epoch.

●    Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? All the information in the Lead is present in the article.

●    Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise and understandable.

Content
●    Is the article's content relevant to the topic?  The article's content is relevant to the topic. The content includes background information, etymology, different ways humans affect the environment, possible time periods for the Anthropocene, and the use of Anthropocene in the humanities and popular culture.

●    Is the content up-to-date? There are 117 references in the article. Ten of the newest references were published in 2019 and ten of the oldest were published from 1991-2003.

●     Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?  As related to the title and lead question, there is no content missing or content that does not belong. However, the objectivity of the article could be enhanced by including any opposing viewpoints.

Tone and Balance
●    Is the article neutral? The article provides neutral coverage of the topic. The article uses neutral language, emphasizes facts, and gives coverage to the breadth of perspectives about when the Anthropocene Epoch should be dated.

●    Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are no claims that appear heavily biased towards a particular position. The article provides a chronological history of the possible starting periods for the Anthropocene and provides scientific data to support each of the proposed times.

●    Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented. However, no clear evidence is given explaining why the Anthropocene should not be a geologic epoch.

●    Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article does not attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References
●    Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All the facts in the article back up by reliable secondary sources of information. Some of the sources include The International Commission on Stratigraphy, Geophysical Research Letters, and University of California, Berkeley.

●    Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic. Many of the sources include books, newspaper articles, scientific journals, and research papers.

●    Are the sources current? The sources are current. There are 117 sources and 39 of them were published after 2015.

●    ''Check a few links. Do they work?'' 115 of the links in the article work. There are no red links. However, reference links 2 and 4 are broken.

Organization
●    Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is well-written. It includes relevant headings, subheadings, images, and diagrams.

●    Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?  While reading the article, no grammatical or spelling errors were noticed that might impede understanding.

●    Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the article is well organized. All of the sections relate directly or indirectly to picking a starting date for the Anthropocene.

Images and Media
●    Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article includes 3 images, which enhance the understanding of the topic. One image is a representation of the Trinity test, one is a timeline of human evolution, and the other is a timeline for the evolution of life on Earth.

●    Are images well-captioned? No, the picture of the Trinity test has a clear caption but the 2 timelines have no caption at all.

●    Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, all three images adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations and fall under public domain.

●    Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The images are laid out in a visually appealing way and are located in the appropriate sections. The photo of the Trinity test is located in the general background section. The two timelines are located in the sections describing the nature of human activities on Earth's ecosystems.

Checking the Talk Page

 * ·What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There have been many conversations since the article was published. The most recent include adding additional hypotheses about possible starting dates for the Anthropocene (7-19), deciding whether certain parts of the article should be removed due to their relevance to the topic ( 2-19), and modifying external links (7-18).

●    ''How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?'' The article is a part of both WikiProject Geology and WikiProject Time. For the WikiProject Geology, it is rated Start-class on the project's quality scale and mid-importance on the project's importance scale. For the WikiProject Time, it was rated start class for the projects quality scale and has not yet been rated on the importance scale.

●    How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?  At this time, the class has not yet discussed the Anthropocene Epoch.

Overall Impressions
●    What is the article's overall status? The overall status of the article is in-progress. According to the talk page, the last update was made July 17th, 2019.

●    What are the article's strengths? The article has several strengths. One strength is providing a detailed timeline for the human evolution and the evolution of life on Earth. Another strength is giving voice to the variety of viewpoints on when the Anthropocene could have started. Finally, unlike many Wikipedia articles, it provided a section for “Further Reading” so readers could learn more about any one viewpoint mentioned in the article.

●    How can the article be improved? In my opinion, the only improvements could be a section listing reasons why the Anthropocene should not be a geologic epoch and fixing the broken links in the reference section.

●    ''How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?'' The article is well-developed with 9 different sections of approximately equal length.

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: Link