User:Mrsadler/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: (Talk:Coral bleaching)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose this article because I am pretty familiar with the topic and it is something I am interested in.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation:
The Lead for this article is concise and is easily understandable for most audience. It has a strong introductory sentence and includes a brief desription but lacks to include some of the main points such as triggers, recovery, and economic value.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The articles content is relevant to the topic and is up to date with a few sources being from the 1987 and 1990's. The content for this article is pretty good but some suggest putting together the triggers and causes, and is recommended to also include a section on climate change as it mentions it but doesn't have its own specific section.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
This article is for the most part neutral with a few points that cause the reader to make assumptions that aren't necessarily backed with factual information. There isn't any viewpoint that is missed other than it is leaning more on the side of this is a bad thing we need to bring this to our attention. Most statements with biased have already been removed by other editors.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Almost all facts in the article are backed by a reliable secondary source. The sources are thorough and reflect the available literature and most are current with the exception of some of them begin from 1987 1990's and earlier than 2003 and a few articles (i.e USA today, The Guardian, etc.). The 5 links I checked still work and bring up a working page or pdf.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is well written and is appealing to a good amount of people with a basic understanding of science. The article does not have any grammatical or spelling errors, and is organized somewhat well but some of the sections could be combined and some could be added like the one on climate change.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The images included help to enhance understanding of the topic with clear captions and laid out in a visually appealing way. They do follow Wikipedia's copyright laws.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
There is a lot of moving things around and combining sections together that is being mentioned. There is also some sections that have been deleted due to there not being enough information on them. This is rated as a C-class article and is park of environment-article WikiProjects. It differs in sense that in class it is viewed in a more scientific sense and in the article it is pretty neutral so multiple audiences can understand it.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
I feel like this article overall is okay. It has some work to do but as we find out more about the topic things will change. This article can be appealing to multiple audiences and isn't too narrow in the sense that only people with a scientific background can understand it. This article can be improved with more current information and changing around some sections. I would say this article is developed but still needs some work. It isn't poor but it isn't great.

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: