User:Sjsua2020/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 : Water Privatization
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: Relates to UN Sustainable Development Goal #6, in that it discusses water accessibility via water privatization.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * 1. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * 2. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * 3. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * 4. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Lead Evaluation
 * The article does include an intro sentence, but Lead overall is very choppy and hard to read. It somewhat describes the topic; however, it mainly described the controversial nature of water privatization. The lead does not include a brief description of all the contents of the article, but it does include references to specific examples of water privatization successes and failures discussed further in the article. The lead discusses some of the failed operations, but these failed operations are not discussed in further detail in the article itself. The Lead is concise; however, it is not necessarily well written and can benefit from information regarding the optics of the article.

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
Yes, the article is relevant to the topic, but there could be greater development on the content, specifically in its historic controversy and relation to SDG6. This article's content is mostly up-to-date and is edited often. After research, we will better be able to identify shortcomings of information. There is some information missing, particularly relating to the controversial nature of water privatization and relations to the SGDs and water accessibility, that we plan on adding.

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 is mostly neutral in the sense that it adequately works to address both the positives and negatives of water privatization. There are no claims that we have found that are particularly bias. The impacts of water privatization could be developed more and stressed more (both positive and negative). This article is not necessarily bias nor persuasive.

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
Most of the facts are backed up with reliable resources; however, some of the resources are broken or inaccessible. There are many references for this article, indicating that the information has been taken from many places. Further evaluation of the article will reveal whether anything in the references must be changed. There are articles are current (published in the last 10 years), but some articles don't exist anymore.

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 mostly concise, but due to grammar issues, the writing is not entirely clear and easy to read in certain sections. There are sentence structure and syntax errors, and it is likely that there are spelling errors that we have not seen. The article is mostly well-organized, but there is a necessity for more information in some sections.

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 does include a variety of pictures that are well-captioned. The pictures do seem to adhere to the copyright regulations. The images are visually appealing and add to the article well.

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
Recent talk (2018) discusses the problem with dead-links and the lack of resources for certain information. Also, they discuss whether the correct article was used for some information (whether the information written based on a source accurately represents information from the source). This article is a class C and is a part of 5 WikiProjects. We have not talked about this particular issue, but we have talked about transboundary water access, which I believe relates to this article.

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
This article fits its C-Class rating, as there are issues with citations and wording. The article's strengths include the fact that many people have worked on this article and there is an abundance of source information to trace the information of the article. Its weaknesses are mainly overall syntax and sentence structure, resulting in slightly difficult to read material. I think the article contains a lot of information, but there is more information that can be added. As I am unfamiliar with this particular topic at the moment, I am not sure of current issues and information that could be added to this article.

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: