User:RLW016/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: Environmental geology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * Because I enjoy Environmental Geology and it was one of my favorite classes that I had ever taken in college.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? It describes the topics main sections but not in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise for the topic and explanation.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The little content that is available is relevant.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Missing content yes.
 * 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

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No the link does not lead to the information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No.
 * Are the sources current? No it doesn't work
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No and they do not include the history of the topic or the individuals who adapted this science.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No. The introduction was started on the topic but has gone no further than that. The topic has a history and a beginning that could be described here.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? No images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no images

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? About how the page lacks to someone suggesting more information like fracking.
 * How is the article rated? Mid importance
 * Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes part of the WikiProject Environment
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Humm...Maybe I went a little off topic. I didn't exactly know I should choice a Freshwater article I just choose one.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Stub-class and Mid-importance
 * What are the article's strengths? That it introduces Environmental Geology as a topic
 * How can the article be improved? It needs more information. Tons more of information.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Poorly developed

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:Talk:Environmental geology