User:Nomakm/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Ocean heat content

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I enjoy learning about the environment. This articles matters as global warming becomes an increasing issue and ocean warming can cause devastation to marine life and ecosystems. My preliminary impression is that it is a well organized article with many citations.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead section: The intro sentence starts of with defining what climatology so readers get an idea of what the article is about. There is a contents table that gives us what sections are in the article. The lead is very concise with 3 short paragraphs explaining what ocean climatology is, why its important, and ecological consequences of ocean warming.

Content: The articles content is sufficient and concise with a background on climate change and the ocean, definition of heat capacity in sea water, how we measure ocean heat content, and also recent observations. This article is up to date with citations coming from as late as Feb. 2022. As for representation and gaps, at first glance it does not, but I would have to take a deeper look into their citations to see if it is primarily white or underrepresented authors.

Tone and Balance: The article is neutral, backing their facts with citations and not making a clear opinion on global warming. Overall, the article doesn't seem to persuade.

Sources and Referencing: Facts are backed up with citations and are thorough. Sources are recent with the latest source stemming from Feb. 2022. Looking at 10 of the articles 7/10 were women, with 1/7 being a marginalized group--so the sources could be more representative of the diverse population. Most of the citations are from peer-reviewed articles. The links work.

Organization and Writing Quality. The organization is clear and well-formatted. No spelling errors that I came across.

Images and Media: Images are well represented of what the article describes. One image is a little confusing though in the definition section on the thermoclines. A non-scientific reader might have a struggle interpreting it at first glance. Images are appealing with one image per section at the top of the sections.

Talk Page Discussion: Only one discussion on the formulas--particularly if a formula is needed or not as well as the proper citation for it. The article is rated a C because of its complete overview of the subject. The way Wikipedia discusses the article is more about content and notability, whereas we wouldn't necessarily put as much emphasis on notability.

Overall: The article's overall status is a C class assessment with a Mid in importance ratings. The articles strength is that is is very neutral and it has many sources to back up the facts. The article can be improved if more people discussed it and if there was a section about who is actively studying ocean warming. I would assess the articles completeness by how many section of the article there is, looking at the sources, as well as seeing what other people have to say in the talk page.