User:Rhurlow/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: Subduction
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I chose this article because it is rated as a C class but is also of Top importance.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The Lead includes a concise introductory sentence that clearly describes what subduction is. The second paragraph in the Lead consists of sentences that describe each section in the article, and does not include extra information. Overall, the Lead is concise.


 * 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
A

Content

 * Guiding questions

The content is all relevant to the topic, as well as up to date with references within the past 5 years. There is some content missing in the "Effects" section, the orogeny section needs to be improved, and I believe that having a short paragraph under metamorphism instead of just a link (to a C-rated page) may be helpful.The article does not deal with Wiki's equity gaps.


 * 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
C

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral. There is not bias in one direction or the other. There is no overlying tone of persuasion.


 * 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
A

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

There is a good amount of citations, but each section could use more. There also seems to be a favored author used as a source - perhaps they contributed quite a bit to the Wiki article. The sources are overall reliable, with most of them coming from peer-reviewed papers.


 * 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
B

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is very well-written. There are only minor grammatical errors. The article is short and links to longer, in-depth articles about almost every section.


 * 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
A

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article only has 3 images. These 3 images are very good, and help the understanding of the topic. I believe some images could be added in (maybe in the subduction initiation section) to make the article more appealing. One figure may be updated to be more descriptive. I think that adding images would be a good addition to this article.


 * 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
B

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There are some older conversations in the talk page. They focus on errors in the text and images, and some facts that can be disagreed upon. This article is rated as a C and Top-importance in the WikiProject Geology and also belongs to the WikiProject Volcanoes. For the latter project, there should likely be expansion on the volcanic aspect that is talked about in the article.


 * 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
C

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

It is a level-5 vital article. Its strengths are it being clear, concise, and well-written. It can be improved by adding more information and figures, possibly increasing the amount of sections to more niche areas. The article is moderately developed, and I believed it can be added to and improved to make it well-developed.


 * 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
C

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: