User:Myrakesti/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.


 * Environmental Studies: Environmental studies
 * In recent new, wildfires have pummeled the entire west coast of the United States. These wildfires have deadly effects on the local environment, which is why I decided to look more into this Wikipedia page that broadly describes the ideas surrounding the relationship between humans and the environment.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead includes a clear and concise introductory sentence about environmental studies, includes a brief description of the article's major sections, includes information that is not present in the article with separate Wikipedia links to each term, and is concise.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article's content is perfectly relevant to the topic. It includes many terms to encapsulate the large field of environmental science like "human interactions," "environment," "natural resource management," etc. The content is up-to-date and there is content missing but that is because environmental science is such a big topic that it would be almost impossible to include every little piece of information that is relevant to environmental studies. The article is concise and does not include content that does not belong. The article does deal with Wikipedia's equality gaps and also addresses topic related to historically underrepresented populations or topics (ethics, anthropology, policy, politics, law, etc).


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

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral and does not appear to contain any bias. No viewpoints are over/underrepresented and there is no persuasion occurring.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

All the facts appear to be backed up by reliable secondary sources. The sources are thorough, although there is one source that says "404 error" when you click on the link so it might need to be updated. The articles are also all pretty recent which is good. The sources include mostly websites and a couple books with a diverse spectrum of authors. Like I stated before, one of the links leads to an error page.


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

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is very clear and concise. There are no detectable grammatical or spelling errors and it is well-organized, but I feel like there could be more subsections; right now, this page only has subsections for history and education.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There is only one image of the earth included in this article and it is okay at enhancing the understanding of the topic. It is well-captioned and adhere's to WIkipedia's copyright regulations. The image is the first thing that my eyes were drawn to when I clicked on this article so I would say that it's position is visually appealing and grabs the reader's attention. There definitely could be more images added to increase the visual appeal of the article.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

I think environmental studies is relevant to many fields of study. There are conversations of ethics, politics, economics, law, and more that go hand-in-hand with environmental studies. The environment itself is constantly changing and its conditions are worsening every year and it is a huge topic of conversation among activists, politicians, economists, etc around the whole world, because all humans contribute to the environment and its condition. The article is rated s-class and is not part of any WIkiProjects. I am unsure how the way WIkipedia discusses this topic differs from the way we've talked about it in class...maybe add more subheadings, because the page is too short and a more diverse array of sources.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The status of the article is okay. I am still not sure the difference between environmental studies and environmental science and why the two pages can't just be merged together into one great Wiki page. The strengths of this article are that it is clear and concise. The article's length could be improved as well as the visual appeal. As aforementioned, the completeness is underdeveloped and the article needs more subsections...not just history and education. There's much more to environmental studies that just those two.


 * 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?

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: