User:Nishithasingi/sandbox

 Week 2 - Article Evaluation: Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus 

Clarity

In the Wikipedia article, "Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus" from what I have read briefly, it needs a lot of work. Wikipedia also has not given this article a letter grading on where it stands. The language for the most part, is easy to read, but not clear to understand. I have added material and edited this article already, prior to my modifications, the introduction to the article was quite vague and incomplete. For example, prior to my modifications, the concluding sentence to the first paragraph was worded strangely. Instead of making it seem like demands have been increasing, as a result of population growth, the article made all the statements in that sentence as something that occurred on its own, without a cause or a reasoning to back it up. In addition, most of the sentences had grammatical errors, in terms not adding commas when needed, not using the correct usage of words, etc. Most of this article needs to work on finishing a complete thought. The article would state a fact, but would not back up that fact with examples/evidence or any further statements to explain that previous statement. For example, the sentence in the second paragraph of the introduction makes no sense: "Greater capacity to pay for improved water will enable alternative water sources such as desalination to bring water into urban from greater distances such as desalinated seawater often requiring energy-intensive production and transport methods." This is because it has no relevant statements previous or after the original statement to back it up.

Structure

The structure of this article is fairly straightforward, but a lot more content needs to be added to further develop this article. According to the contents, the article only briefly discusses definitions, interactions among the water, energy and food security sectors, nexus approach and nexus perspective. It needs more sections and perhaps subsections, such as: the challenges of the interactions among these three sectors, the opportunities that could possibly rise, a couple case studies that demonstrate this from around the world, etc. Also, as mentioned previously, the structure of the article would flow nicely if the sentences were rephrased with appropriate commas in place. However, I did like how whatever that was mentioned in the article had a labeled section to it, with appropriate links directing to other Wikipedia articles.

Balanced Coverage

The article does cover each section with the same amount of material, therefore, it technically does have a balanced coverage, however none of the sections are complete. The article's content is very surface level. As mentioned previously, each section needs a fair amount of work either with examples/evidence or further statements to back up a fact/thought/statement. In order to be considered truly 'balanced coverage', the article needs more sections and subsections throughout the article to fill in the gaps and to expand on the existing material. I have stated an example of this in the structure section above.

Neutrality

One strength of this article is that it is written in a neutral tone, with no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. For example, under the section 'Interactions among the water, energy and food security sectors,' it states: "The energy sector can have other negative impacts on the food sector when mining for fossil fuels and deforestation for biofuels reduce land for agriculture, ecosystems and other uses." This sentence is straightforward, stating that there are negative impacts on the food sectors, as a result of the energy sector, due to such and such factors. It does not include unnecessary wording to make it seem overly negative or underwhelming either. As mentioned, each viewpoint is fairly represented, however, the article needs work on filling in the gaps and expanding on the current material, as the content is very surface level.

Talk Page

The talk page is confusing to understand, but from my understanding and what I can see, there have been lots of changes added to this article. Most of these changes are minor, such as, tweaking a word or two or adding in basic statements, etc. I also see lots of changes done to the references and citations and changes done to the structure of the article, such as deleting a linked article, etc. As mentioned, Wikipedia has not given this article a letter grading on where it stands and I do not believe it is part of any WikiProjects. I do not see any discussion on the actual topic of the article, but there should be, in order to make the article beneficial.

Sources

This article requires many sentences that require a citation, some of which I had already made modifications to. For example, the very first sentence of the introductory paragraph was missing a citation: "The water, energy and food security nexus according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), means that water security, energy security and food security are inextricably linked and that actions in any one area usually have impacts in one or both of the others." This statement was derived from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations website. I have included a footnote and a citation to this in the references. Also, many of the sentences is very close to plagiarism, as only a couple words have been tweaked. For example, prior to my changes and footnote, in the sentence mentioned above in this section, it basically copy-pasted the exact statement from the website to the Wikipedia article. In addition, I noticed that the article had a section on references and bibliography, which are the same thing, but both sections had different citations in place. I have also changed this; I deleted the bibliography section, as it was incomplete. Overall, there are 15 sources, to which the quality of the sources itself are good, as they come from reliable journal articles, websites, etc. The footnotes that are made are thorough and complete, however there are many sentences that are missing in-text citations.

Suggestions for Improvement

Some of the major weaknesses in this article are:


 * 1) sentences awkwardly phrased --> not easy to understand
 * 2) grammatical errors
 * 3) lack of information
 * 4) missing footnotes in sentences

A suggestion for improvement for each of the corresponding weaknesses above are:


 * 1) reword awkward sentences, by avoiding run-off sentences. Provide multiple sentences after the statement to support the previous sentence.
 * 2) read each section out loud, before moving on to the next section to make sure the sentences are flowing nicely and that it makes sense.
 * 3) thorough research needs to be done on the topic of water, energy and food security nexus.
 * 4) do footnotes as you write and edit the article to avoid forgetting to do citations and avoid plagiarism. Also a good idea to double check a section, before moving on to the next section.

Side note suggestions:


 * include pictures

Some of the major strengths of this article are:


 * each section is clearly labeled
 * good quality sources
 * neutral tone; no heavy bias
 * appropriate links directing to other Wikipedia articles