User:Rsjy01/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: Environment of South Korea
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen this article to evaluate because the environment of a country oftentimes is impacted by that place's culture. I think it would be interesting to research this and to see how it's changed and where it's headed.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The Lead is pretty redundant in stating "The environment of South Korea is the natural environment of the South Korean nation". I think it could be more clear when it comes to letting people know what the article is about. It also lists the current issues but I don't see how that's pertinent to the general definition of South Korea's environment. The Lead also touches on forests and natural parks. This is along the lines of what's in the article, but it doesn't accurately summarize the rest of the content. The Lead also talks about "uninhabited zones" which is helpful for wildlife, but it isn't talked about in the actual article. The Lead is about as concise as the rest of the article. The subheadings contain two to three sentences at most and are very surface level and lacking informational depth.


 * 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 content is mildly relevant to the topic. It doesn't blow me away in terms of relevance but the information included is about the South Korean environment, so it applies. There is one section about a North Korean dam, which doesn't fully make sense considering the article is titled "Environment of South Korea". The content is relatively up to date, most of the sources used ranging anywhere from 2012-2018. I think the North Korean dam section doesn't belong for quite obvious reasons. There is also most likely information missing considering many talks and changes have been happening around the world in terms of environmental protection. I think noting South Korea's policies in place that are unique to them that help the environment are important to note but aren't talked about. It doesn't address topics related to unrepresented populations, but environment is an important and impactful topic that deserves more attention than what it's given from this page.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is pretty neutral. There are some times where the diction takes a passive turn which can make the facts come off more biased or dramatic than they need to be. There aren't any super shocking or biased points. There are also not many points that are over or underrepresented, those that have edited the article have done a good job or reporting the facts that they've found. It isn't an article that is noticeably trying to push someone one way or another.


 * 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

The facts in the article are mostly backed up by reliable secondary information. Some of the sources I look at and truly wonder what they're doing in the reference section, for example they used a "Best 7 restaurants in Seoul" blog as evidence of South Korean's lack of veganism? The sources are relatively current, the information from within the last decade. Many of the sources that are used come from media outlets. Not to say that it's bad, but it might be nice to see where those media outlets got their information from and trace it back to the original cited source. A lot of times media will have biases and twist information in favor of the emotional response they're trying to evoke. The links available to click do work.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is pretty easy to read, but it also doesn't have much information that would make it hard to read. There aren't any huge grammatical errors, but I did notice that a lot of the Korean words are romanized, where the proper format would be to at least include the hangul next to it. The sections that this article is broken into is a bit concerning, because the main two headings are "Natural Environment" with about six sentences, and the next heading is "Environmental Issues" with about six subheadings. I feel that there could be a more impactful layout for the presented information.


 * 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
Currently the article does not have currently have any images however, there is one chart. The chart depicts the air quality in Seoul and the chart itself is explained well however, the connection between air quality and health risks is not explained throughly. The chart does adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The chart is laid out in a visually appealing way that is also easy to understand.
 * 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?

Checking the talk page
There are not really "conversations" on the talk page just people stating changes they made to the Wikipedia article. This article is rated Start-class and is a part of 3 WikiProjects, WikiProject Environment, WikiProject Climate change, WikiProject Korea, and WikiProject Library of Congress Country Studies. The Wikipedia article talks about the environment of South Korea in a pretty neutral. relativistic approach. There are, however, more subheadings about negative environmental impacts than about the natural South Korean environment.
 * 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?

Overall impressions
The articles overall status is that the Wikipedia page for the environment of South Korea still needs a lot of work. The articles strengths are its diversity of topics. The article can be improved by adding more information to each section so the reader can have a better understanding of each topic. The article could also be improved by adding images. The article is underdeveloped and needs more information and editing. Some sections do not have links to sources so where people found their information isn't clear and some sections are only a few sentences long. This article needs to be fleshed out more.
 * 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?

Preliminary Research/What we can add
Through initial research, I have found that the article currently fails to go into detail on the regulations in place for air pollution as well as it's social effects. The International Trade Administration and World Health Organization have both published reports of the South Korean government's failures of controlling air pollution. It might be beneficial to add information of what contributes to this danger to their citizens. Like the health risks due to air pollution.Things like coal and gas contribute most to this, and Korea has done some, but not enough, to stop its damage. From 2014 to 2016 there was a significant decrease in the air pollution control industry. The World Health Organization includes information on the social damage that Korea's air pollution has, which should be touched on as well, but isn't included in the current information. There is a lack of information on this page about the interaction between Korea's choices and it's affect on the environment.

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: Talk:Environment of South Korea