User:Solay3000/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Water-energy nexus

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is about a topic I am interested in and I thought it was interesting that it was rated a C-Class project and rated as low importance. It was not too long which made me think that maybe it could use some additional material and editing.

Evaluate the article
Lead: The introductory sentence is sufficient in identifying what the water-energy nexus is. However, the lead does not include any descriptions of the sections of the article. Additionally, within the lead is a paragraph about the history of the term water-energy nexus, I feel like this should maybe be in a separate section.

Content: The content all seems relevant to the topic, however it can be updated. The most recent citation is from 2020, but all the other citations are pre-2017 with a major section using data from 2016. Considering the topic, I would assume there would be a lot more technological improvements and changes since then to be included. Additionally, the article does not address Wikipedia equity gaps.

Tone and Balance: In terms of tone, this article does well with a balance.

Sources and References: I noticed that only 17 sources are used and several of the same sources are used multiple times. Most sources are from 2017 and before, therefore I would assume the sources are not up to date especially considered this is a current topic and not a historical one.

Organization and Writing quality: The writing quality is fine, however the organization does not seem to reflect all the necessary points of the topic. I feel like there are viewpoints missing.

Images and Media: The images do well at enhancing and highlighting points made in the article.

Talk Page: There is one talk discussion about how the units of Energy intensity are unclear. This article is a part of the WikiProject Energy and is rated as a C-Class project of low importance.

Overall: This article appears to be a great starting place, but does not at all seem comprehensive or complete. I feel there is a lot of information and viewpoints missing. The coverage of various sub topics does not seem equal and it is not clear why some topics were included, but not others. This article would benefit from a more thorough review of current source material on the topic and the inclusion of these ideas and framworks.