User:Missyfaith92/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: (link) Mineral water
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * Because it is relevant to my work and I want to see how much information is on it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead was very lacking in information and descriptive information.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There was no summary of what the article would cover. Just a brief explanation of what mineral water is.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is no concise and lacking details.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * It is relevant but not enough.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * It actually does not state a lot of enough that is dated. It could use an update with a lot more details.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is more content to be added such as locations of springs, legend of springs, what exact minerals are in mineral water and more.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * no.

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?
 * There are no viewpoints stated.
 * 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?
 * They are reliable. Although I would question the FDA.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * They are relevant but could use a lot more with more diverse information.
 * Are the sources current?
 * 2 are and 2 are not.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * There are not enough sources to make a statement about this. They have some diversity.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes except the FDA link.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is well written and easy to understand but could use more details.
 * 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?
 * For the information presented it is well organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes, with adding information I would suggest adding photos.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes.
 * 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?
 * Requests for more information and image replacements that have been fulfilled.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Wiki Projects, beverage
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There is no mention about the environment impact of mineral water.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * A good start but needs a lot of work.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Weak due to info but currently all information listed in well cited.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Much more information
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Underdevelopment

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: