User:Mnyemchek/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the environment

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because not only does the article pertain to the contents that are taught in the Chemistry of Water, but also due to its relevance to a post-pandemic society.

Evaluate the article
Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

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?

Concise

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

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

There should be more information on the water quality post-Covid-19

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

Yes, the article talks about the limited topic of the environmental effects of Covid-19

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

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I feel like there could be more information about water quality

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

Yes

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?

I feel like there needs to be a more diverse selection of authors, some articles overlap authors.

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.)

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?

No

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

Yes

Images and Media

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

Yes

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?

One editor said that "this article has mostly the same, only has one differing source and also makes strange claims. Warming keeps up every year and it was anticipated that emission reductions due to the pandemic would not be important enough to effect cooling, but perhaps to slightly slow down warming. However, the claim that I see here is that reductions have contributed to more warming, rather than slower warming (with the "warming instead of cooling" potentially misleading). I added relevant tags for now" about the warming section.

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

C-Rated and yes

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

The topic expands beyond water quality and other ways COVID-19 affected climate change

Overall impressions

What is the article's overall status?

The article presents a topic that needs to be talked about; however, the article is lacking a lot of evidence supporting the topic

What are the article's strengths?

The images, tone, and topic

How can the article be improved?

Evidence supporting the topic

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

I think the article is a little undeveloped, but the topic itself is not fully researched and new evidence should be added.