User:ProBuss/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Sedimentology

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 have chosen this article to review because it goes over a large topic relating to natural resources and I am reviewing to see if this article includes unnecessary information. The topic of Sedimentology is important because the study of sands, clay, and the different formations have major implications for mining for earths resources. My initial thoughts on this article are that it is well written and concise, additionally, it includes multiple relevant sections.

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.)

Evaluation

Leading Section

The leading section begins with a strong leading sentence generally outlining the field of sedimentology as well as a few of the processes that sedimentology assesses. While the leading section outlines sedimentology as a whole, it could do a better job of outlining this article in terms of the sections and the different components. The leading section excludes any irrelevant information. This leading section is also written concisely with no signs of over explaining.

Content

The content of the article is all related to the topic directly. It avoids topics which have little relevance or significance. The section titled Recent Developments is lacking new information relating to the topic. It talks about research which was conducted in 2007, while there have been new advancements in Sedimentology in recent years. There are no content gaps, however, it would benefit the article to dive more into the newer findings and research in Sedimentology in the last 5 or 10 years. This article does deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps in any capacity.

Tone and Balance

This Wiki article is written with a clear and neutral tone. There are no claims that contain a view that is not backed up or is biased. There also do not appear to be any over or underrepresented voices within this topic. This article is also not aiming to convince the reader of a certain view point, instead it is portraying relevant information regarding the topic of sedimentology.

Sources and References

The sources appear to be legitimate and are linked directly to the topic. There are 9 listed sources, which may be slightly low considering the depth of the topic however there does not seem to be any content gaps or gaps in the sources of information. The sources are also slightly dated which may lead the writers to update the research of this topic, however, like previously mentioned, there are no noticeable knowledge gaps.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is organized into digestible topic which are easy to understand before moving to the next topic. There were no noticeable grammatical errors. The sections reflect the major points about Sedimentology, however, it does glaze over the new research about this topic from recent years.

Images and Media

There are several images which are clear and are clearly labeled. These images are also relevant to the topic or displace pictures that aid in the understanding of the reader.

Talk page discussions

The Talk page is very short for this article, only mentioning a few topics. The first is that this article does not contain very many sources which another editor pointed out. The second item on the talk page mentions reorganizing this article, by swapping two sections. Generally, this Wikipedia article talks about the topic similar to if it were taught in a class, however it may use outdated sources.

Overall Impressions

This article, overall, is a very easy read which aids the reader to understand more about the topic of Sedimentology. There are very few critiques I would make to the writing. The sources are slightly outdated however they contain sound information about the topic. This article is nearly complete, it just lacks the newer research of sedimentology