User:Sameer.Mehta10/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: Deep-sea exploration
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I chose this article to evaluate because it seems like a great summary of what we will be learning more about in class this semester. Although the article does not really talk about the specifics of what has been discovered, it is a great introduction to how people initially started to look into the deep sea and how we have gotten to our current understanding of the deep sea.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it provides a definition of what deep sea exploration is, which is a good introduction of what the article is about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the lead mentions specific milestones of deep sea exploration, mentions specific instruments used during exploration, and mentions deep-diving submersibles, which covers all of the major sections in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Besides introducing the idea that the deep sea has not been explored until very recently in the introduction paragraph, the rest of the lead only contains information that is covered in the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is a great balance of detailed without containing too much information that would prevent readers from wanting to continue to read the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the article title is "Deep Sea Exploration" and the article talks about what that exactly means, how the deep sea has been explored, and the results of some of the explorations.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The only section that may not be up to date is the "Milestones" section, which states the last milestone regarding Deep Sea Biology occurred in 2018 by Victor Vescovo. I am not sure if there has been any other major accomplishments since that point. Everything else is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, all of the content is very relevant to the topic of the article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, there is no bias at all. It is strictly informative.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, as I stated in the last question, the article is strictly informative, with no bias at all towards any position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The Results section may be underrepresented because it does not contain as much information as I would have expected. It contains information about two specific findings, but I would assume there are more results that have been obtained in Deep Sea Exploration.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all of the facts stated contain hyperlinks to other articles, and there are over 30 sources to back up the information stated.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, they reflect the literature without diving too deep into the specifics to keep the article very concise.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most sources are current, but there are some references from old literature from 1908.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, very easy to read and very straightforward.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not catch any.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * It includes three images, but they do not necessarily enhance my understanding of the topic. The last picture presents a video that does help the reader understand more about autonomous landers and how they work in the ocean.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, informative and straight forward.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, they are not too big and do not stand out in any manner.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Most of the conversations are related to word choice and how some of the words in the article should be altered. There are also conversations about modifications to external links/
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale, and high-importance on the project's importance scale. It is within WikiProjects Geography.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia discusses the topic in a more detailed and specific manner than what we have talked about in class. For example, all of the milestones it lists in that section we have yet to go through in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I would say its a very well written article.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is detailed to a certain extent, but not overly detailed, which makes the article very straight forward and easy to read.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Speaking more about the results of exploration to this date would strengthen the article.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is very well developed, but as I stated already, it would help to have more information in the results section, since there has definitely been more than two main results that have been uncovered.

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: