User:Ssilverbrand/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: Paleolimnology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate as it is directly relevant to understanding processes of limnology and how it ties in/ helps in understanding of paleoecology. It is also directly relevant to my masters thesis.

Lead

 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The lead of this article does include an introductory sentence that is concise and describes the topic, as well as breaks it down by the root of the word to understand where it comes from in Greek. The lead does not include any description on the article's major sections, but it does include information that is all directly present in the article. The lead is concise but detailed so that the reader will get a broad understanding of the topic and what the article might discuss further.

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
All of this article's content is relevant to the topic. It lays out major topics by section in the contents table, and then further breaks down each major idea into smaller sub-topics that are discussed in the article. This provides the reader a place to gather more information and determine which level of detail or what aspect of the article they'd like to read. The article is up to date, and covers a large swath of information on the topic. There is nothing that is not relevant to the article. I do think that this article could be developed more, and include more information/ more subheadings on the topic and how it is used in fields such as paleoecology, limnology and paleontology as well as how it will be used to study these fields in the future. It does not have any reference to current day applications or updates on where the field is in our current world.

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 neutral. In the History section under Lake ontogeny, differing views of the role of internal lake processes are discussed without interjecting personal opinion or conclusions on the topic that are not correctly cited/ sourced. Throughout the entire article this same trend is followed, where the author/s present factual information on both perspectives of theories and ideas without trying to persuade the reader in favor of personal opinion. The article is well balanced throughout, providing at least a few sentences on each side of an idea or theory within paleolimnology.

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
This article does an excellent job of providing reliable secondary source information. They all reflect the literature and can be helpful for a reader that may wish to learn more/ look deeper at the information presented in the article. All of the links I checked worked, and I also think the article does a great job to linking to other Wikipedia pages on information presented in the article that may not be common knowledge or that a reader may want to explore more deeply.

The only thing I would suggest for this article is a broader expanse of more recent articles surrounding the topic, as I believe most of the references date back to 2016 or further back (with many being concentrated earlier than this). It is also possible that the article could provide a few more references for each paragraph of information, as it seems that each paragraph has one main source and some more information/ additional sources may be useful.

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 extremely well written; it is easy to follow, explains concepts enough for the reader to get the base information and it is concise. I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors. The article is extremely well organized, as I noted earlier. Each section is directly relevant to explaining the topic at hand, and each section is sometimes subsectioned to provide even more information.

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
This article does not include images related to the topic at all. The only image on the page is of a dinosaur fossil, which only indicates that this article is a part of a series on paleontology. Therefore, no the images are not enhancing the understanding of the topic.

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
The talk page is broken down into sections of its own, like added content, suggestions and critique. The majority of conversations seem to circulate around a class called GEOG 3900. This page is a part of many WikiProjects, including WikiProject Climate Change, WikiProject Environment, WikiProject Geology and WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography. It is rated start class for all of these, and of mid-importance in geology and limnology and oceanography. This page was also a part of a course, and had an assigned student editor and peer-reviewer. The Wikipedia comments specifically in suggestion sections are pretty useful and thoughtful, but they don't seem different from what we've talked about in class. Generally they are just providing information for the betterment of the 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
The article is a fairly decent article. It could use more content on the subject with some additional information and citations, but overall it is well developed. The strengths of the article are its sectioning and clear lead at the start. As stated, this article could use more content and possibly some additional sections to talk about the field in more detail.

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: