User:RosieRushing/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 chemistry
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I have chosen to evaluate this article because environmental chemistry is an important subdiscipline of biogeochemistry, therefore, it would be relevant to the course. My current PhD research is within the realm of environmental chemistry, therefore, I would be able to best understand the topic and content within its context.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The introductory sentence for the Environmental Chemistry page is concise and clear and describes the field as scientific and encompasses chemistry and biochemistry. I disagree with their use of the word "natural places" because it does not feel as strong as something like the "biosphere" or "ecosystem." Additionally, there are no links to what "natural places" are, however, biosphere could be easily linked to for more reading.

The Lead does not include a sentence on the article's major sections, even just to name them, however, this is a rather short article. It would be helpful to have a short introduction to the future sections.

The Lead mentions chemical processes, but does not directly refer to what processes these may be in the rest of the article. Overall, the Lead sets the reader up for the future sections.

The lead is concise, however, overall, it strikes the reader as a bit unclear. Perhaps there have been a few too many editors which makes it sound kind of chopped up.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article's content is very relevant to the topic and includes contamination, environmental indicators, applications, and methods. The environmental indicators section seems only be about measuring water quality.

The content mostly has sources from early 2000s and only one from 2016, therefore, some more relevant sources could be added, especially if the author is writing about methods and applications of the field.

This page is missing a large portion about environmental chemistry in air or soil. In addition, more could be added about the interdisciplinarity of the field.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

This article does a good job of having a neutral tone, however, there is one time where an editor mentions the word "our" which seems odd and out of place.

Environmental chemistry is not an incredibly polarizing topic and there are no claims one way or the other that seem biased.

There is heavy focus on methods and applications portion and I think the environmental indicators section could be more thorough. In addition, environmental chemistry has to do with processes and there are few actual processes mentioned (i.e. fate and transport, etc).

There is no persuasion evident.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

There are a lot of WikiPages that are linked to various topics within the article. There are only 13 sources and considering the methods and applications section of this article, I would have expected more sources cited. All examples backed up by sources in a peer reviewed journal or from a regulatory agency like the EPA.

There are a portion of sources from the EPA, however, these are in addition to several peer reviewed journal articles and textbook chapters. Interestingly, there are a few glossaries cited. Overall, the sources fall into three categories: 1) EPA documents, 2) book chapters defining environmental chemistry, and 3) journal articles for the methods portion. The sources are wide ranging, but there could be more sources from specific applications of environmental chemistry and other disciplines that utilize environmental chemistry techniques.

The sources are a little outdated, but only by about 5 years. However, in a field as emerging as environmental chemistry, there have been a lot of recent advances that may be useful for the reader.

The links I clicked on worked well and even referred me to free, library copies (peer reviewed papers are not always publicly available to check).


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article would provide someone with a very basic and limited understanding of environmental chemistry as a discipline. This article is concise and short, however, it is not incredibly clear why the sections were chosen or how the main editor structured the article. There are some abrupt transitions that make it seem like there have been a few main editors with differing ideas about how to structure the article.

There were no grammatical or spelling errors that were obvious to me.

Again, I would organize this article in a different way, maybe with more sections about air and soil chemistry and refer the reader to those pages about the other disciplines that often connect with environmental chemistry, such as geology, biology, public health, etc.

Overall, the subject of environmental chemistry is conveyed with a few examples of methods.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article only has one picture of some rocks in a bag on the other side of a river that is hard to see. It is not entirely clear how this image relates and it is hard to see what the caption is referring to. It would be more appropriate if there was an environmental remediation section.

The caption is, however, quite thorough and details the location and context of the photo. In addition, the image is appealing and fits in well on the page. I would choose to add more images, especially in the methods and application sections.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * The conversations on the talk page are surrounding a terminology and concepts section and an observational database for atmospheric data. The comments about adding sections on Cycles is particularly useful and I think other Wikipedians understand the page needs better structuring.
 * This article is a level-4 vital article and needs people to improve it. It is a start class in environment and chemistry WikiProjects page, but of mid importance in the chemistry WikiProject and of high importance in the environment WikiProject.
 * Wikipedia in general addresses this in a broad way, but I think it could be improved through teaching the reader a bit more.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * Overall, this article is informative, but needs some restructuring and a little TLC, but it is on the right path.
 * The article's strengths are that the Lead does a good job of defining environmental chemistry and connecting to other disciplines and that the people on the talk page are considering adding a cycles section which would improve the article greatly and add more context for how environmental chemistry intersects with biogeochemistry.
 * The article's weaknesses are that the subsections are not obviously structured to support the claims in the lead. There are a few abrupt transitions and awkward wording.
 * I would say the article has a lot of good elements that should not be taken out, but that a significant portion should be added.


 * 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?

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: