User:SAFNF/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
CO2 fertilization effect

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it discusses how the increased rate of photosynthesis is linked to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, a topic that is inherently linked to my thesis. This is important because I am investigating shrub biomass advancement for my thesis and it would be useful to get a more detailed understanding of the processes that may be driving shrub advancement. Increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide affect many processes and feedback loops, so the more puzzle pieces we have, the better we may be able to understand and mitigate change. My preliminary impression is that the article has a brief introduction, a few specific topics and examples that need to be developed a lot more, and some good references. However, there is a lot of information missing in terms of broader implications for increased photosynthesis and the link to climate change. There is also no discussion of shrub biomass advancement, so it would be nice to include a section exploring that relationship.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not a description of each, but there is the contents list.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) Partially, there is mention of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, but it is not discussed or explained in detail later.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise, but lacking some information.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Somewhat, a few very specific examples from a study that seem abrupt.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Partially, there could be a lot more recent and relevant articles added.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? No
 * Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view? Mostly neutral, but the lack of information seems to direct the reader in a certain direction. The reader is left with a lot of questions and assumptions.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Somewhat, there is an attempt to be transparent about what has and has not been observed.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No
 * Are the sources current? Somewhat (2008-2019)
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Yes
 * Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Partially
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Yes, there are a lot more peer-reviewed articles that are available to source.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they are mostly linked to other Wikipedia articles.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Mostly, just a lot of abrupt changes to new points.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Not really

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NA

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? I don't see any discussions on the Talk page.
 * How is the article rated? I don't see a rating.
 * Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes, three: Environment, Climate change, and Plants.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? There is a lot less information provided on this topic and a lot of the links to climate change are lacking.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? Needs improvement
 * What are the article's strengths? Some good references
 * How can the article be improved? Increase the information content, smooth out the paragraphs, add images and diagrams to help the reader visualize some of the processes, and add a few sub-sections with links to other related topics.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness? Underdeveloped