User:Mkerns11/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Water politics

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen to evaluate this article because I wanted to learn more about the way that water policy is created and affects various populations.

Evaluate the article
Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * 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?

Yes.


 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)

No.


 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

I think that the lead provides a helpful overview of the rest of the article. However, I think that drawing the comparison between water and oil here is something that should’ve been touched on in the body of the article instead.

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

Yes, the most recent references are from 2021.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

The article comprehensively considers water politics across the globe by highlighting a variety of countries with different demographics.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes.

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view?

Yes.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, even while discussing opinions on political issues the author is careful to name the stakeholders


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No.


 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

Yes, the author makes it clear who holds which opinions and attributes quotes accordingly.


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No.

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Yes, the references come from across the globe.


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

Not that I was able to find, the article had a comprehensive list.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes.

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Not that I was able to find.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes. The article first touches on the overall conceptual topic and then goes more in depth by investigating specific country cases.

Images and Media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes, but I think there could be far more of them — especially images that depict human impacts of the topic.


 * 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.

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

There are only a few conversations on the talk page, but one called attention to bias within the article which has now been corrected.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

Rated C-class. It's part of 5 WikiProjects.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

It discusses the issues from a more global perspective and helps touch on more of the human impacts.

Overall impressions


 * What is the article's overall status?

I think it's relatively strong.


 * What are the article's strengths?

It is deemed a very important article, and I think that it has been extensively researched and presented.


 * How can the article be improved?

The article provides a good comprehensive overview of the politics surrounding water and give the reader a strong theoretical basis to consider.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

It seemed pretty complete but could use some more pictures to help illustrate the topics discussed.