User:TOTM123/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Wolframite

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.)

I have chosen to evaluate this article on Wolframite, because it is a very valuable natural resource used in many important applications and is a conflict resource. While the topic of blood diamonds and blood oil are well explored by modern media, other lesser-known conflict resources (such as Wolframite) are often overlooked. This matters because of the suffering that is happening daily in the places these minerals are extracted from, do not get mentioned enough, even though they are more commonly encountered in our average day then one might expect. I hope that by evaluating this article, I can increase my social awareness in this space, and gain a deeper understanding of just how apparent conflict resources are in our day-today live. After initially reading this article, I think it has substantial information on the mineral, but is somewhat lacking on providing more in-depth information on its uses, extraction processes, and the unethical mining practices that pertain to it.

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 lead section includes a strong leading sentence that clearly describes the articles topic without being too info-dense. Some critiques of the lead section are that it does not do a great job establishing the following sub-sections of the article, additionally it provides information about the production of the mineral that could have very easily been it's own section or combined within the sub-section 'Uses', instead it provides a rather breif overview that it fails to elaborate on. The lead section does a good job of not going too in-depth on the geology of the mineral, in such a way it is still digestible by someone from a non-geology background and in addition, they provide helpful in-situ links to other Wikipedia articles that can aide in the readers understanding of the subsequent topics.

Content:

The articles content is all prevalent to the topic and up-to date for the most part. Barring, some older links and topics that could be fleshed out further, as previously mentioned. There seems to be a lack in the content surrounding it;s historical use, location, and extraction methods, but that could simply be due to a lack of information available. I would argue that this article does deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, specially regarding the Congo conflicts that occurred and affected many. It briefly touches on the topic, but doesn't go into specifics regarding how Wolframite was involved. To further improve this, an additional sub-section could be added specially addressing the aforementioned issue, and possibly adding one to further explore the historical implications of this mineral in early Europe.

Tone and Balance:

The article does a fantastic job maintaining a neutral stand point, when discussing the various impacts and complications that are associated with this resource. A small issue in the form of understating the social implications of this mineral, is somewhat apparent in the way they discuss it's classification as a 'conflict mineral', but it is understandable as it is a highly controversial and opinionated topic, that can be to can be difficult to maintain neutrality through out.

Sources and References:

For the most part all relevant facts within the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source, that is current and openly available, with working links. The section regarding the minerals use, involves sources that are from rather one-sided sources (The Economist), without digging deeper into the topic. A lot has happened in the world since, 2010, regarding the societal stance on the unethical use/procurement of conflict resources. The sources come from a wide range of authors/view points, but a possible improvement would be to increase the inclusion of sources from those underrepresented groups impacted by the resource (such as those involved in conflict resources). There are more robust source available, with only a small number coming from academic literature, but another possible improvement is to include more articles /papers from academic sources where possible. Much as been published in recent years regarding a lot of the topics briefly touched on, such as resource extraction,use, and history.

Organization and writing quality:

The article is well written and maintains no apparent grammatical or spelling errors. It flows very well, and concisely conveys the information required in a pleasing manner. It is sectioned out well, but there is room for improvement in the form of additional sub-sections on lesser mentioned topics (Historical locations/uses, impacts on those in the area of conflict extraction, etc.)

Images and Media:

The article includes a image, which does aid in enhancing the readers experience, and is well labeled/adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. However, there is a single image and nothing more, to further improve the visual appeal of the article, it would be worth including additional images that reference or discuss various other talking points within the article (extraction, uses, etc.).

Talk page discussion:

The primary conversations going on behind the scenes have to do with the etymology of the mineral, as well as debating the fact that it isn't a specific mineral, but rather a solid solution. Besides these the talk page is rather scarce, I would like to see a more in depth discussion regarding other historical topics of the mineral besides just its etymology. The article is a part of the 'WikiProject Geology' and 'WikiProject Rocks and Minerals' and is rated as 'start' quality and of 'mid' importance. We have yet, to discuss this topic in class, or the concept of conflict resources in general, so I cannot make an educated comment on that currently.

Overall impressions:

The overall status of the article is decent, but there is room for improvement. It does a good job of providing a very high level view of the resource and it's associate topics. However, there is specifically a need for improvement in the 'Use' section and the lack of historical information regarding the mineral besides it's entomological roots. Some possible improvements, could be updating/expanding sources on certain topic (see above), the inclusion of additional sections to improve the readers knowledge/understanding of the topic, and overall just fleshing out more of the points that were briefly mentioned. It's not a bad article, but it's underdeveloped in certain areas and there is definitely room for improvement and for the expansion of the ideas presented.