User:Smoua00/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: Atlantic meridional overturning circulation
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I chose to evaluate this article because Wikipedia has rank the content as "C". This means that the article could be improved on by adding more information about the overturning circulation and its significance/role in current movements. I think the article could benefit from more graphics and illustrations to demonstrate the physical process.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

Lead does include a few sentences that describe what the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) is. Lead explain that AMOC is an important process but does not provide further detail about its importance in any part of the article. The article focused more on how AMOC works and the main drivers that help produce AMOC.


 * 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

 * 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
Content is up-to-date. I could suggest to expand more on AMOC and its relationship to other physical processes and if it affects the aquatic life too.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

I did not feel any sort of bias because the information was presented almost like a textbook. So I think it passed on this part. The most focused viewpoint is on Regional Overturning. More information could be added to general idea about AMOC because that section was short.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

The reference section contains many sources about AMOC. I was surprised by the amount of reference there was in relationship to the article. Most of the references are focused on one section of the article which is Regional Overturning.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is somewhat well-written but I felt overwhelm at times because the language can get too scientific and technical. I do not have any idea about what AMOC is and after reading this, I still don't.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

The article only have one image which is a topographic map of the AMOC. The article will benefit from adding more images and media to show how AMOC works.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

One Wiki commentator said that the article would benefit more if it talked about "carbon sequestration" and its relationship to AMOC. Also provides multiple references for fellow Wikipedia users to read about this interesting connection. Another commented that figures are missing so that might be a potential way to fix the article. Lastly, one said that the article felt to jargony and technical to understand. Provides argument to explain this particular case.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

Overall, the article has an important topic to talk about. However, I think the article must add more information about AMOC in particular to climate change and also it significance in earth system sciences. AMOC is important but in which areas of interests?


 * 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: