User:Noah.hirshorn/Evaluate an Article

Noah Hirshorn VOC Article Analysis
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Volatile Organic Compounds
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I ended up deciding to take a look at the article for volatile organic compounds because it is not only relevant within my field, but also is a nice combination of scientific concepts and some policy as well. This made it nice to analyze as there are an abundance of sources as well as facts within the article.

Lead

 * Guiding questions (Hirshorn answers in bold)


 * 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 starts off nicely with the bolded text and the first sentence is concise and provides relevant information to what a VOC is. The article then proceeds to detail some of the chemical and physical properties which I find necessary given the complexity of the topic. The article includes the example of formaldehyde which I think benefits the article providing context to what the topic is. The next section does a decent job detailing some facts on VOCs but the section seems to be not the most scientifically relevant (a lot of the text sounds like fun facts). A further concern is that the article does not go into the chemical and physical properties in more depth. However, from a word count perspective, the lead is concise and does provide information that would be interesting to someone learning about VOCs for the first time.

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

Content evaluation: The content is up to date even though I think more could be added to the wikipedia page. I thought it was interesting how different countries define VOCs differently which leads me to believe a regulatory perspective may be overrepresented. I do appreciate how they acknowledge anthropogenic and biogenic VOCs and provide emission amounts. I think all of the content in there is relevant, but some of the sections about VOC sensors and modeling could be combined to make the article more concise. One thing that would be interesting to add to this article (as well as any scientific article) is a section on the current state of the field. This would allow new readers to gain insight into what is currently going on to progress research. While VOCs may not directly address a wikipedia equity gap, air quality disproportionally effects underrepresented groups and understanding VOCs leads to better understandings of air quality.

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: The article is indeed neutral as I do not feel persuaded. As mentioned above, I think the monitoring perspective may be overrepresented as there are multiple sections on VOC monitoring information and methods. The information within the article is neutral and aims to inform instead of persuade.

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?
 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation: The sources are very well done and I have little critiques for this section. Sources include websites, peer reviewed work, and government agencies which I think represent the topic well. Sources appear to be from a diverse group of authors as I see many papers from abroad included. I tested a few links and they work; however, sources do appear to be from about 4-5 years ago and may require an update.

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 quite concise and the sentences are easy to read. I did not notice any glaring grammatical problems. As mentioned above, I think the article needs to add a section about the scientific definition (not country regulation) as well as combine some of the sections on monitoring VOCs.

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: One photo of a contraption used for pollution abatement is included. The format of the photo and caption are correct by wikipedia standards. However, I would suggest using another photo of a scientific diagram or something along those lines to expand to a wider audience.

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: A lot of minor edits have been made by people to this point in time which surprised me. Going to the talk page, people are courteous but critical of the article and provide constructive feedback. The article is part of four WikiProjects (Medicine, Environment, Chemistry, Technology) and is rated a "C" by all of them in that the article needs improvements. As mentioned before, the article takes a much more regulatory approach to what I often perceive an atmospheric chemistry topic.

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 think the article is a B- article. The strengths are that it is concise and easy to read but it lacks some of the modern science. To improve the article, sections need to be rearranged and I would appreciate a section going into a universal physical definition, not a regulatory one. Work appears to be in progress to improve the article so I will check back at some point to see.

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: