User:Ricemp/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: Oceanic carbon cycle (Oceanic carbon cycle)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article to evaluate because it is a part of several different WikiProjects so it should be a very well written and thoroughly reviewed article, which will be a good example for me. Also, the topic of the oceanic carbon cycle is very relevant to this class as well as real world applications, since the excessive amount of carbon that the ocean is taking in is certainly changing the ecosystems of the ocean and the biology of the living organisms in the ocean.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the opening sentence summarizes well what the article is about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the Lead briefly touches on all of the subtopics of the article. However, I would say that the paragraph flows together smoothly because it is trying to mention each individual subtopic in the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the Lead does not include any information that is not present elsewhere in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think that the Lead is overly detailed. It is quite long compared to other Leads on Wikipedia and also gives too much detail for each subtopic that it describes.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the entire article is very relevant to the main topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content is for the most part up to date. The one thing that I think could be more current is the source for the predictions of how the increased levels of carbon will affect humans. The article states a prediction for the year 2030, using a source from 2016. While 2016 is still quite recent, since this is such a developing area of concern and study I am sure that there are even more accurate predictions from more recent articles.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The last topic of the article is titled "Human impacts" which contains just a couple examples of the effects of increased carbon production in the atmosphere. I think that this topic is relevant, but the specific examples they used seem somewhat random. Also, the rest of the article is very much focused on the science of the oceanic carbon cycle, while the last section is more about how the oceanic carbon cycle fits into other processes. So maybe this section does not belong, or could be rewritten more in the theme/tone of the rest of the article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes the article is neutral. It is science and fact based, so there could not even really be opinions on this topic.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, like I said there are not "sides" for this topic.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * All of the facts are represented equally.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, there is no persuasion involved in the majority of the article. The very last section, however, is again different than the rest of the article. It talks about the how we are degrading the ocean by overflowing it with carbon, which could be seen as slight persuasion towards fighting against climate change.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all of the information throughout the article is cited appropriately. Many of the sources are secondary sources from science journals.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes the sources are thorough and come from a variety of different journals/publishers.
 * Are the sources current?
 * They are for the most part current. All of the sources used were from between 2000 and 2017.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes the links work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes the article is well-written. It may not be the easiest thing to read for someone completely unfamiliar with chemical/biological processes, but I think even with a limited background in those subjects it is still understandable.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No there are no errors that I could fin.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The section organization of the article is very clear and helpful. It is broken down into quite a few different headings, rather than just three or four bigs ones. which makes it easier to follow along I think.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes it uses several images to demonstrate the scientific processes that it is describing, which are very helpful. I think there could be even more images.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes the images are well-captioned, explaining what the image is of but not being too detailed or elaborate.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes they all adhere.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, they are big and easy to see on the main page. They are all positioned in the same way on the side of the article which is nice.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is very little activity on the talk page. The few comments are about editing the Lead to make it more concise and adding more references.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article has no rating. It is apart of several WikiProjects, including Chemistry, Biology, Oceans, Limnology and Oceanography, and Environment.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not covered this topic in class yet.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I think overall the article is quite good.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The strengths of the article are the organization of the subsections and also the detail it provides to the topic. It goes very in depth about every aspect of the oceanic carbon cycle.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * I think the Lead section can be revised and made more concise. I also think the last section can be revised as well to make it either more detailed or more general (take out the randomness of the subsections of this section).
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say that the article is well-developed. As I said above, I think there are a couple parts that could use more developing but for the most part the article is very complete.

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: