User:Pizzaguru16/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Climate finance

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Assigned by Professor

Evaluate the article
Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

·      Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes

·      Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not exactly, it does not mention much about the funding involved.

·      Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? It does not (It shouldn't.)

·      Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise, but I would use a better topic sentence then just defining climate finance.

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

·      Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes

·      Is the content up-to-date? Yes for the most part but there are some sources that came from early 2010’s which could be updated.

·      Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The Economic Costs of Climate Change section I feel does not belong because the article is supposed to be about the finance involved in mitigating and adapting to climate change but this section just highlights how much some disasters cost.

·      Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

·      Is the article neutral? Yes

·      Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No the article focuses on climate finance

·      Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No

·      Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? No

·      Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

·      Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? '''Yes, but some of the sources could be outdated. Also, the bottom three sections of the article have no sources listed which could be something to look at.'''

·      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 but as I mentioned some could be outdated.

·      Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, there is a wide variety of authors.

·      Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Yes because some of the sources are outdated.

·      Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

·      Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is clear but there are instances when the article sounds very complex and you can make it more readable to the average reader.

·      Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I can see

·      Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes but some sections may not be very relevant to climate finance.

Images and Media

·      Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? '''There are two very small images that are somewhat relevant to the topic. The second image is not too relevant.'''

·      Are images well-captioned? One does not have a caption but the other does.

·      Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes

·      Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No they are much too small and there is a lot of information on one of the images.

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

·      What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is one conversation about the difference between climate finance and eco-investing which is not too relevant to the topic.

·      How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? No

·      How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We have yet to dive into the aspects of climate finance but I imagine we will cover them in more depth in class than the article did.

Overall impressions

·      What is the article's overall status? S

·      What are the article's strengths? The article is written well and you can tell there was a lot of thought put into the first few sections.

·      How can the article be improved? Find more updated sources and take a look at the last couple of sections to make sure they are relevant to the article.

·      How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Well developed but there is still room for improvement.