User:RenLK/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: Mountaintop removal mining
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because from what I have learned, mountaintop removal is one of the worst mining method that greatly impact the surrounding environment negatively, and I am curious to learn more.

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
The Lead inclued an introductory sentence that clearly describes the articles's topic. The Lead did not describe the marjor sections in this article such as enviornmental impacts. Although it has mentioned the practice is controversial, it seems like the controversy is between economic benefit and safety rather than environmental sustainability. The Lead briefly mentioned where this practice has been used, but the more detailed informations are not present in the article. It seems like overall the Lead is inconsistent with the article.

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 article's content is relevant to the topic. The content is not up-to-date, and it is only focusing on the U.S. but not the worldwide. I feel like the content needs better orgainzation. For an example under the legislation section, the dates are out of order. I think we should be more specific on the history of applications in the U.S., i.e. have a list of the sites, and generally talk about worldwide application. There is lack of emphasis on environmental impact and health impact, especially for workers or residents that live around the area, and perhaps impact on Native Americans.

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
The tone of article is overall professional, but not necessary neutral. Certian section is biased toward against MTR. Advocacy for MTR is presented to some degree but to really back up with enough support or evidence. I don't think the article is trying to persuade the readers, the article was not written in a way to argue, the support is weak.

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

Sources and references evaluation
Majority of the facts are back up by citation. The sources are thorough and reflect the topic. There are some sources that are up to date (within 5 years), but most of the sources are from the 2000s. The sources have a diverse spectrum, encompass news article, scientific journal, and government report. The links are working.

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
The article is not well written. There are many repetitive sentence, and the paragraphs under each topic do not flow. No obviously grammatical error ( I am not good at grammar). No, the article is not well organized. There is no health impact under "Environment and Health Impact". They can be two separate topic. Advocates can be a separate section. Topics under "Environment and Health Impact" is not clear. Although the content is related, the topics titles do not reflect the sections.

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
Yes, the gif for MTR processing is helpful for understanding. The two images that compared the before and after of the mining site are helpful to see the impact of MTR. The first image is not well-caption, did not have the exact location. I believe so, otherwise they will not be on the wikipedia's page. The images are some what too small for my liking. There are two images about Hobet mine, but Hobet mine was no where mention in the article.

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
The converstation is about the article been opinionated. So you can see people add the support MTR to the article. However, first it was unorganized, second the opposition for MTR add the a rebuttal under the advocate for MTR. Editors also argue that MTR is not common outside of the U.S. I like the idea posed under "Controversy", but it is no where relfect in the actual artitcle. Ther article is under WikiProject Mining, Environemnt, Energy and Appalachia. It is rated Start-Class, "An article that is developing but still quite incomplete". It is some what hard to follow the converstation, but everything is record.

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
I think overall the articles needs more information and organization. The article has some establishment for both side of the arugment, and the tone is professional and farily netural. Improvement is a better organization and a better flow in the writing. The article is not well developed, it could have including more imformation.

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: