User:Schneidert23/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: Environmental science
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I am interested in the area of environmental sciences.

Lead
The lead does have an introductory sentence that clearly describes what the environmental sciences focusses on and studies. The lead does include a small description of some of the major topics within the article but does not include all topics. The lead presents information relevant to the topic and does not stray far from the subject area. Although the lead does seem to be a bit longer containing four paragraphs, it is not overly detailed and doesn't fall off topic.
 * 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?

Content
The article's content is relevant to the topic and follows the guideline presented by the lead. The content within the article is not as up-to-date as it could be as shown by the references at the end of the article that are dated in the early 2000's. Content "missing" could be content that is mentioned in the lead that is not followed up or gone into detail within the main body of the article such as the types of sciences in the lead sentence. The article does not deal with the Wikipedia equity gaps or address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.
 * 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?
 * 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
This article is neutral. There are no particular positions placed by the article therefore there is no position to be taken from the article. The viewpoints within the article are equalled presented. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader to favour a position rather it just present the information about the topic of environmental science.
 * 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?

Sources and References
The facts within the article are backed up by reliable secondary sources as shown in the reference list and each reference is thorough and reflect on the topic of environmental science. As mentioned before, the sources are a few years out of date; most of which are dated in the early 2000's. The sources are written by a diverse group of authors ranging from philosophers to zoologists. The links within the article are functioning and work properly.
 * 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?
 * 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
The article is very well written and flows well. There are no grammatical or spelling errors. The article is broken down into sections based off the main topic of environmental science giving it a good, professional structure.
 * 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?

Images and Media
The article does include images that coincide with the separate sections in the article. Each image is well captioned each having their own cite. The images all adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations and are appealing within the layout of the article.
 * 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 a few conversations on the talk page of this article stating that some citations are incorrect and that the person making said comment was going to make edits to citations as well as some other conversations about other edits being made to the article. The article is rated as a c-Class. The article is a part of the WikiProject Environment project.
 * 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 overall status of the article is a level 5 vital article in an unknown topic. The strengths of the article are its professional structure and layout as well as the correctness in the grammar and language used within the article. The article could be improved with some revisions in the citations and references as they may be outdated. I would assess the article's completeness as well-developed with a few corrections needed.
 * 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?

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: