User:Salliejohnson99/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: "Sustainability in Construction"
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose this article because it is very relevant to my PE and my research, however it is severely underdeveloped so I have recognized a lot of places where I can add information and make adjustments.

Guiding questions

 * 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
The lead is lacking an introductory sentence that provides a neutral and overarching explanation of what sustainable construction encompasses- instead it goes straight into differences in the definitions proposed by different countries. It would be helpful to include a sentence about when the term was introduced and the universal topics it encompasses, as well as some discussion about why there are difficulties in defining the term. It also does not mention what sections the article is going to cover. I believe the lead is too concise, and the reader does not come away from the lead section with a clear understanding of the concept or what the article is covering.

Guiding questions

 * 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?

Content evaluation
This article discusses first the definitions of sustainable construction, then its evolution, benefits, and relevant strategies. One immediate concern I notice with the content is that the first two sections are very repetitive, since the overview gives different definitions of sustainable construction and the second section simply repeats these definitions. I also think the section "Evolution Path" could be renamed to history and developed significantly. In general, none of the sections go into much detail, and are poorly organized. Additionally, there is no section detailing the specific challenges and considerations associated with sustainable construction in developing countries, or the general debate surrounding the concepts, which are sections I believe my research will allow me to develop. The content seems to be relatively up to date, discussing studies that were released as late as 2015.

Guiding questions

 * 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
Wikipedia flags the article as being written in the style of a personal reflection or argumentative essay since it reveals the author's feelings towards the topic, so it could be improved in the tone used and the style of language. This is especially apparent in the section titled "Why encourage sustainable construction," which reveals the author is biased toward the implementation of sustainable construction practices. In a similar vein, the author does not address any common criticisms of sustainable construction. Because of this, the article definitely attempts to sway the reader towards a favorable opinion of sustainable construction practices.

Guiding questions

 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
While all of the sources seem credible, there are instances where the source is not quite relevant to the information presented. For example, the author uses source 3 in the section "Evolution Path" to support claims of awareness of sustainability emerging in the 1970s amidst oil crises; however, source 3 is a report that discusses CO2 emissions of the construction industry. The author also lists the UN's Sustainable Development Goals as a source, and while it is relevant to what the article is talking about the author could have transitioned into a discussion of the popular criticisms of the SDGs, which would have provided more depth to the article and linked it to more pages in wikipedia. The sources are current, however it is not an exhaustive list of relevant and important sources- for example, Agenda 21, which is the one of the major defining reports for sustainable construction, is not cited.

Guiding questions

 * 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
Overall, the article could be more concise and easier to read. There are a few typos and grammatical errors that need to be cleaned up, and the organization is not very intuitive. The section titled "Evolution Path" is not well thought out, and misses important points. The section entitled "Why encourage sustainable construction" is also not a very helpful section title, and could be renamed strengths or benefits of sustainable construction. The sections are not effective in reflecting the important aspects of sustainable construction.

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?

Images and media evaluation
The article does not contain any images. I believe images would be very helpful for the reader's understanding of the topic, especially for the strategies section where images could display examples of the strategies being used in real life. In general, images would be helpful in showing examples of sustainable construction and the various phases of the process.

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?

Talk Page Evaluation
There is no conversation occurring in the talk page of this article. The article is part of the following wiki-projects: Architecture, Civil Engineering, Economics, Sustainability, Futures Studies, Globalization, Safety and Health, Sociology, and Technology. The article is rated C-class, low importance in all of these wiki-projects. The lack of discussion surrounding the topic of sustainable construction is surprising given its growing importance and emphasis in many disciplines.

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?

Overall Evaluation
The article's overall status is C-class of low importance, which is valid given the underdeveloped content of the page and the concerning biased tone. The article's biggest strength is provided a foundation for the topic that gives the reader some idea of what sustainable construction is, and inviting a lot of improvement and room to build on the discussion of the topic. It could be improved through cleaning up the sections already present, adding sections on developing countries and the debate surrounding sustainable construction, including pictures of examples, and fixing the narrative to be more objective. It is clear this article is underdeveloped.

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 -~