User:Salll327/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: (link) Paleoceanography || Paleoceanography
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. The current research project I am working on has ties in with paleoceanographic interests of the government.

Lead

 * 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 does include an intro sentence that describes the article's topic. The Lead does not include a specific or detailed comment on each of the article's sections covered by the table of contents. The Lead mentions the topics, but not specifics of things covered within the article. The lead is not overly detailed, but concise and to the point.

Content

 * 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
The article's content is all relevant to the topic, as well as up to date (i.e. within the 2000s), however it could use updating with newer data from more recent (2010+) experiments or sources. It seems the content has a banner, stating the article relies too much on Primary literature, and therefore must have some explanation and or secondary or tertiary resources added to it.

Tone and Balance

 * 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
The article seems very scientific, with no bias towards a position. The viewpoints represented are that of the scientific understanding of the term and 'ology.' The article does not seem to favor a position on the topic matter, nor attempt to persuade a reader.

Sources and References

 * 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
It has 16 references and sources, of which are clickable and work. These sources aren't all current, some from the 1900s, but most are 2000 and later. The information seems to be mostly primary sources and relevant to the topic at hand.

Organization

 * 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
The article is well organized and broken down into sections. Each section seems to have a good organization and flow itself, with no recognizable grammatical mistakes.

Images and Media

 * 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 has one Image that is not captioned, however is more of an interactive image. The image contains a lot of clickable links. The image itself is also visually appealing.

Checking the talk page

 * 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
Most of the article reviews are in response to the neutrality of the article, however some criticize the article's use of little citations in the Lead. It seems it is a part of GEOG 3900 as a WikiProject, as well as rated as a C-Class; 2 high interest, 1 low interest.

Overall impressions

 * 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
I believe the article can be improved by adding more secondary and tertiary sources like the banner suggests, however I also believe adding more images, figures and captions for these will improve it. I believe assessing the article's completeness, content wise it covers a decent amount of topics within the grand scheme, however there could be more added quite possibly in regards to fossil records and more. I believe the articles strength is currently the layout, as it sets a very good baseline for more detail to be added and other sections or data to be Incorporated.

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: