User:Siroisj2499/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Climate of Anchorage

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this one because learning about the climate of Anchorage is something that interests me. When I move to a new area or visit a place, I often learn a lot about it's cultures and points of interest. In this case, I see at as an opportunity to get to know an area in a unique way. Not only can I learn about the Climate of this area, but it will give me the tools on how to assess data like this in future areas and how to be knowledgeable about them.

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? I'm not sure, it's a short article with a broad title.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) It does not.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

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? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think it could have some clickable links to certain references in there Ex.) Mt. Spur
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? This is strictly a scientific article. So there is no references to equity or any specific population of people.

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 neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? N/A
 * 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? They are thorough.
 * Are the sources current? Most seem to be, some references are from around 10 years ago though.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Most sources come from current data sets linked to other websites, I think there is a lack of availability for there to be a diverse set of authors.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? Most of the information either comes from current data sets from the NOAA website or articles from established journals. As of now, it looks up to date and acceptable.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

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? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I can see. It does have a link to Campbell Airstrip that doesn't work though.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Sort of, I think they could be updated and could include more photos.

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? N/A
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Low Importance and Start Class
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It's specific to Anchorage. We go over a number of other areas being affected by climate change as well.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? Could be made to look a little bit prettier.
 * What are the article's strengths? It's straight to the point, the figures are up to date and easy to understand.
 * How can the article be improved? I think so, it could use some link updates, new photos, and anything else to make it look a little better.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It's complete but could look a little better.