User:Mysteriousmoose/Evaluate an Article

Rafat Quazi Algal Bloom Evaluation
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link)Algal bloom
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. - I chose this article because it was hard to find another article relating to deep sea bio since every link went incredibly specific and then did not yield a large enough Wikipedia article to evaluate. I had to settle for algal bloom.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does since it defines algal bloom.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It somewhat does as it later goes into harmful algal blooms and talks a little about "eutrophication" aka the process of oversupplying nutrients that leads to O2 depletion.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No it does not
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is fairly concise without being overly detailed. Maybe a few terms could wait to be introduced in their respective sections but that's just my take on it.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes as it is all about the varying characteristics and natures of algal blooms. It takes about their causes, researching solutions, and notable occurrences.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes it is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think everything that is already there definitely belongs. Perhaps expanding on the researching solutions and adding more tips for people who aren't scientists to deal with algal blooms would be helpful.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there aren't since science that is being reported on a subject like this really has no way to be "subjective." The article is just presenting on facts about blooms.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoint on researching solutions is a little underrepresented since it is so short.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No there is no persuasion.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. For example, under causes of HABs the article states "It is unclear what causes HABs; their occurrence in some locations appears to be entirely natural, while in others they appear to be a result of human activities." This quote alone lists two citations to back up their claim.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, many scientific journals are used as a source.
 * Are the sources current? Somewhat
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they do

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is, the vocab is not above a college level.
 * 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 although some sections like "Background" can go on for a bit too long. If those sections were broken down further I think that would be helpful.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes there are multiple images of algal blooms, including one taken from orbit that shows a severe one.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes they are very informative in describing each unique situation.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not really, they're all just to the right side and laid out in a normal fashion.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Perhaps adding a section on how to deduce when/where an algal bloom will occur next? Or a section on future research such as creating fertilizer that won't lead to algal blooms after runoff.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is not part of a wikiproject
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It isnt too different since this Wiki goes deep into the subject matter of algal blooms and tries very hard to deliver non-biased information that is enriching. This is similar to other Wiki articles we've discussed like the history of the Challenger Expedition.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? A very strong article giving information on Algal blooms
 * What are the article's strengths? The amount of information relating to the science of algal blooms and how they can be harmful are very helpful and a strength of this article
 * How can the article be improved? Like I said, introducing information on the researching solutions section of algal blooms since it is so short.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is well-developed since it even goes into specific detail about notable occurrences of algal bloom - dating back to 1901 and a more recent bloom in India during 2019.

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: