User:RavynCasey/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 science
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. The field of environmental studies is relevant to microbiology.

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? Indirectly
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? its not very detailed

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Some of it, the last section on regulations guiding the study isn't very relevant
 * Is the content up-to-date? It was last edited September 2019 and most of the resources are form the 2000s
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is content missing that is described in the lead that is not expanded on in the rest of the article. The last section doesn't make a lot of sense to include.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? For the most part, the last section on regulation guiding the industry is sourced by government agencies website.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The last section seems biased towards NEPA and the EA, there are other industries and organizations that are making an impact in environmental science.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Each section is underrepresented with information, some of the sections don't make much sense being included in this article.
 * 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 some facts are not sourced
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Some of the facts stated are directly taken from a government agencies websites. The facts being about that government agency and its regulations guiding environmental science. One of the resources was a pdf of an entire textbook, and the site did not include sections or page number to reference.
 * Are the sources current? No, most of the sources are too old, being older than 10 years. The two sources that are within 10 years are both 2010.
 * 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? No, it's not very concise and off putting to read. There doesn't seem to be any flow between sections.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I noticed, but some of the sections where poorly written and phrased.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The last section seems disconnected from the rest of the paper and the middle sections could be better organized and rephrased to fit the topic better.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Some of the images enhance the understanding of the topic, but other picture don't add anything to the article.
 * Are images well-captioned? Some are but the picture about the earth's atmosphere is not
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Everyone hates this article and saying it needs to be scrapped and rewritten, but nobody has the time to do it. The conversations going on behind this article aren't productive and seem to be more people showboating about their knowledge of the subject but not contributing anything to the actual edit of the article. The conversations consisting of information to be added to the article where also biased.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C-class and is part of the WikiProjects
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This wikipedia article doesn't discuss microbiological influences within environmental studies. Where as microbiology and environmental sciences, ecology, are interconnected fields.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Poorly constructed C-class article
 * What are the article's strengths? It has a decent skeleton of an article to jump off from
 * How can the article be improved? Including current resources and rewriting sections to have flow better
 * 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: