User:StassieKrosten/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Climate change policy of California

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

This article directly pertains to my topic, evaluating climate Change policy in California. This article matters because it synthesizes a topic which is complex but relevant to the lives of millions. My initial impression was that the lead section does not have adequate information or summary to give readers a sense of what information will be detailed in the article. Additionally, the tone is quite matter-of-fact for a complex and nuanced issue such as climate change.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

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? no
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) no
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? too 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 to my knowledge-- I don't know that California has passed any recent/major legislation that is missing
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? it briefly touches on environmental justice groups but could elaborate

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, the article presents mostly facts about the legislation passed
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? no
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article does assert the reality of climate change, but it uses sources that are reputable and credible to back up these claims.

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? yes
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? mostly government and news sources-- but this feels appropriate for the topic
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) no, I feel that summarizing the government legislation is appropriate
 * 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, but it may be too concise. The article could elaborate on the effects, successes, and responses to each policy.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * 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? no
 * Are images well-captioned? not applicable
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? not applicable
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? not applicable

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? The most recent discussions were about a year ago-- regarding how the article needs more information, further organization, and updated information. It seems many of these changes have been made.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C-. It is mostly part of WikiProjects regarding California and Climate Change.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The article is quite technical and does not delve into the social effects of California's climate policy.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? inadequate
 * What are the article's strengths? very concise and legible summaries of technically dense and complex legislation
 * How can the article be improved? further information on the policy's effects and a significantly longer lead section
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? under-developed. needs additional information and updating