User:Natsar6/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: Carbon Sequestration (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because it is a big topic in ecology, and I wanted to see whether the wikipedia page regarding such an important topic would have accurate information on it. It is also a newer topic to be, so I wanted to see if I would be able to understand the article.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes the Lead does include a sentence in comprised of the definition that is clear to the readers, and it also clearly describes carbon sequestration in simpler and more broad terms.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead does not include a brief description of the major sections, but rather discusses the process of carbon sequestration and how it is captured. The articles major sections are shown in a general contents bullet point section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, everything included in the Lead is explained and discussed in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The article's content is relevant, and discusses all the types processes and examples that are related to carbon sequestration.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content is for the most part up to date, and most sources are within the last 10 years; however, there are some sources that are older. The article was also updated within the last month.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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 for the most part. The latest source was in the last year.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

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

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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

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 conversations about the methods of CO2 sequestration, section organization, and examples for carbon sequestration. There are also conversations on what to add regarding CO2 characteristics. There are also discussions on adding to carbon storage and capture, and how to organize it clearly.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The articles is rated separately among the many WikiProjects. Specifically, it is rated C-class and mid-importance for the WikiProject Chemistry, Inactive for WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, start class and low importance for WikiProject Geology, and C-class for both WikiProject Environment and Technology.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The Wikipedia discusses the topic in a categorized way, looking at sequestration through biological, physical, and chemical processes. It also discusses carbon sequestration and how it was captured. It also went more into detail on the science behind carbon sequestration, and all the detailed processes.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The articles status seemed to be very organized, detailed, and concise. The main take away was discussed and easy to be deciphered by the reader.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article is organized by process, and it is very thorough and detailed. It is neutral and does not look to sway the readers.The language is in a way where the reader can understand and take away key points. It is also an up to date article, proving it to be reliable.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * In the Lead, there should more of an introduction on the topics discussed in the article to get the reader to understand what is discussed in the main body of the article. The article could also improve by adding more information on some of the less discussed topics, such as electrochemical method, etc.
 * 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, and discusses all the processes and details of carbon sequestration

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: