User:TLRix/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Water resources

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.)

Water resources are defined in this article as sources of water available to humans.[1] Water plays a major part in the daily lives of humans. I chose this article to evaluate because having an accurate and good source of information about this resource available on Wikipedia is crucial to furthering the general understanding of this important topic.

My preliminary impressions of the article was that it was quite long with large blocks of uninterrupted text. There are a lot of subheadings that kind of made the point of the article get a little bit lost.

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:

The first sentence does not clearly describe the full scope of the information included in this article. It defines what water resources are, which is important, but it should also allow for a very brief understanding of the article as a whole. The two following paragraphs of the lead section lists the subheadings but does not give enough information on each. A sentence or two describing each major section could be useful. There is no information included in the lead that is also not present in the article. This section is not overly detailed, but the sentences are a bit convoluted at times that make it a bit difficult to read. A complete rewriting and reordering of the lead section could be useful.

Content:

Missing content: The importance or relevance of this information to an average persons everyday life. The question of "Why should I care?" is not appropriately addressed. Maybe a link to a separate article about these issues would be warranted.

Missing content: There are no mentions is this article to any equity gaps nor any mentions to or about historically underrepresented populations or topics and how it relates to the topic of the article. These may not necessarily need to be included in this article but the absence of this needs to be noted.

Tone and Balance:

The article is fairly well balanced and neutral.

Sources and References:

The sources included are relevant and sufficient to the topic from a variety of sources. However there are numerous places where additional sources and citations are required.

The majority of the sources are either websites or news articles. More peer reviewed or academic citations could be useful.

Organization and Writing quality:

This article contains many experts from other articles, as well as long uninterrupted blocks of text. This makes for a disjointed reading of the article. Its hard to read and follow. There were no obvious grammatical or spelling errors.

There are a lot of subheading in this article. While this is a broad topic, and a lot of information needs to be included maybe a restructuring of the formatting of the subheadings would make the article easier to follow.

Images and media:

The images included are accurate and informative and contain correct captioning.

Including an image for each subheading could be useful in increasing the ease with which the article is read. This would provide for a brief visual overview of each subheading.

Talk page discussion:

The talk page has been mostly inactive for a few years with the most recent edits being in July 2022. There were a few conversations going on about how to restructure the article and moving or removing certain sections, which I agree with.

A point to discuss in the talk page would be the possible rewriting of the lead section.

This article is rated as B-class to the following wiki projects: Business, water, future studies, sanitation, climate change, limnology and oceanography.

Overall impressions:

The current status of this article is a former featured article candidate.

This article does include a lot of relevant information and is a decent starting point and overview of the topic. The sources are well balanced and include enough variety. The article does a good job of presenting facts in a neutral manner and no biases were detected.

There is only one section I believe should be included to increase the quality of the article (the "Why is this information important now?" section). I also believe a thorough reworking of the lead section is required. Combing through the article and adding all missing citations is necessary.