User:Pedro.torres26/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: (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump

I chose this article because I saw in the title "Ivory Coast toxic waste dump" and I rapidly thought in what we're living through and lots of people dying or getting sick and I was curious to know how it all happened.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
This article has an introductory sentence but it isn't concise. It also describes the article's major section but gives details that aren't important.

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 contents given is relevant to the topic, tells background information explaining how it all occurred, symptoms of the people that were affected and everything necessary in order to understand what happened and how. The content is up to date and it doesn't show equity gap.

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
It presents a neutral tone, presents all the points necessary to understand this event and it doesn't try to persuade nor pick a side.

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 marginalised individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
I tried multiple links and all reflected the available literature topic, and where from second reliable sources but only one link didn't open

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
This article has some spelling errors, parts of the article aren't concise and a few sentences that aren't clear making you need to read more than once in order to understand the information given.

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
It only includes 3 images but only one helped to understand or to visualize the situation. There should be more images that could help the readers understand better the information. All images adhere to copyright regulations.

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
In the talk page they're talking about some information missing like the chemicals and how the author could enhance the article for example giving more details about the two sides represented without picking side. This article is rated C.

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
This article overall status is a C. The article's strength is that it explains almost everything in a way that's much easier to understand or to know something about how it all occurred. This article can be improved by correcting the spelling errors, giving more details about both sides and including more pictures that helps the reader understand better the information. Besides all, I think this is a well developed paragraph because it presents everything in order making it a little bit easy for the reader to understand the information.

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: