User:Monica.Keim/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: Eklutna River
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose to evaluate this article because I have already done quite a bit of reading about the subject, am working on a senior project about this subject, and find it beneficial to explore aspects that I may not have learned before or considering relevant to my project.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, pretty clear introduction esp. for folks outside Alaska/USA - It just describes the length, the fact that it IS a river, and that it is located in South-central Alaska.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, very briefly touches on a detail about an 'impoundment' but does not address either the upper nor lower dams of which make up the 2 sections of the article later on.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, there are quite a bit of briefly mentioned details that are not addressed in sections later on - namely anadromy of the river and it's fluvial-system characteristics.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's not poorly written, just a lot of information that is not elaborated on or linked well.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? It is fairly up to date on activities and events within the watershed, however has large information gaps within those events.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is not a lot of information on adjacent land-use or environmental details (particularly surprised there is no mention of Eklutna Village or salmonids).
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No. In fact, as stated above it doesn't mention First Nations history within this watershed and doesn't talk about the Village and the status of subsistence today.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Generally no, but there is a statement in the Lead about the river being "degraded" without any links or details to back that up.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, it's very factual.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, although perhaps that could be misconstrued from the unsupported "degraded" comment.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Not very thorough no.
 * Are the sources current? Not to this year no. The external link doesn't work for the "Eklutna Project."
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The majority of the sources are other Wiki-pages, which I find hard to interpret the author representation from. I would argue that no it doesn't not source from diverse authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Most do because most are to other Wiki-pages, however, the external link doesn't work for the "Eklutna Project."

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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, nothing glaring.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? For what is written, yes it is.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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 notes about this being part of our Wiki Education Foundation course and some projects that this has been involved in. There don't appear to be any replies any of these.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? WikiProject Alaska, - Rivers, and - Limnology and Oceanography Among these the article is rated "Start" on the quality scale, and "???", "Low", and "Mid" and the importance scales depending on the WikiProject.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? No, the projects are environmentally focus which I think is an important (and missing) component of this topic's article!

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? This article hasn't received a lot of attention and needs a lot more detail added to be better represented.
 * What are the article's strengths? The two sections that are discussed are about the Upper and Lower dams, which are an important part of the modern history of this watershed.
 * How can the article be improved? Adding detail on cultural history/significance, environmental descriptions, current events (and research), and more information about the watershed and land-use.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Underdeveloped.

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: