User:Millerpedia/Evaluate an Article

Millerpedia/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: Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because I have always been interested in science and I think sustainability is a big modern day issue. However, I am a bit disappointed in this article because I thought it would offer a lot more information than it is. Either way, I am still choosing to evaluate it since I think I can learn from an article that needs work.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, but it's almost a bit too wordy in my opinion.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It does not, most likely because the article is scarce and doesn't have many sections at all.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes. The lead mentions important names regarding the journal community, but doesn't expand on who they are.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise, but throws a lot of information at the reader in one sentence. I think they could afford to break up the lead into a couple sentences in order for it to flow better for the reader.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The content is relevant, but doesn't go into much detail.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * I think it would be helpful if the author included some dates for the content they stated. There are a lot of names included, but it is possible that those names are retired or no longer part of the journal community.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is lots of content missing from this article. Besides a basic overview of the journal, they do not provide any other information. There is only one other section included, and it does not do a good job of explaining the impact of the sustainability journal.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is neutral and only states the facts about the journal.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There is no bias in this article, as it is only stating facts about the journal and who is in charge of it.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * This article doesn't have any viewpoints at all, but there is opportunity for one under the "impacts" section. However, the "impacts" section of this article only has one confusing sentence, and could definitely use some work.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All of the facts have links attached to them which brings me to another wikipedia article. There is only one reference, although it is a reliable source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources do reflect the available literature on the topic and have more information than the original article itself.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are current
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links do work, and lead to wiki pages that are far more developed than this article.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The facts in the article are clear. However, I would not consider this article concise because it leaves me with more questions about the sustainability journal than it answered.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not catch any spelling or grammatical errors
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is not well organized. It only has an intro which goes into the main leaders of the journal, but then doesn't actually offer any information on the journal itself.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article does not include any images to enhance the topic
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There are no images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * There are no images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There are no images

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are no conversations going on in this articles talk page; only individual edits of small components such as changing who the chief editor is for the journal over time.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated as needs expansion. It is a part of three WikiProjects: WikiProject Academic Journals, WikiProject Energy, and WikiProject Energy.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discuss this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This differs in Wikipedia compared to our class because it is missing a lot of information. For example, in class, we discussed content gaps in the sections of a Wikipedia article. In this article, it almost seems like the entire thing is a content gap because it is missing a lot of information. Even though I don't know much about this topic, I can tell it is missing a lot of information because I am left with a bunch of questions about it after reading the introduction.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * This article's overall status is that it needs a lot of work added to it such as sections to break it down.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * A strength of this article is that it has good links attached to it, so I can easily read up on any buzz words that are in the intro.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * This article can be improved by adding a significant amount of sections.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I wouldn't say this article is poorly developed- just under developed. It would be poorly developed if it had sections that were insignificant or biased to the subject, but instead, it just doesn't have any sections to begin with.

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
 * Question: What is the background of the editors and founders of this journal? What made them want to make it in the first place? Has this journal had a significant impact in the field of sustainability?

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: