User:Tamara Omar/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Geodiversity

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is related to our class and natural resources. When talking about natural resources, particular areas are important which are characterized by biodiversity and geodiversity which exist in different ecosystems. This article matters because geodiversity is essential to the distribution of ecosystems. Being responsible for an area's geodiversity is very important because it helps maintain that land and its nature. My preliminary impression of this article was that I thought it was very interesting because not a lot of people know what geodiversity is. It says in the article itself that geodiversity is not studied or distributed across the world and I think that it should be as crucial as biodiversity which is studied all over. I think that the article is undervalued and is very significant, it just needs more information.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The lead section includes an introductory sentence that describes the article's topic concisely and clearly. The lead doesn't include that much of a brief summary of the article's major sections, this article is too short and the stuff discussed in the lead isn't all referred to and discussed in the body. The lead includes information that is not present or touched on in the article. The lead is more detailed than it should be. I think some of the points in the lead should be smaller and less detailed, and in the article itself, they should have elaborated and been more detailed along with those minor points that should have been in the lead.

Content

The article's content is relative to the topic, however, I think that the content should have been a lot more detailed and it is missing a lot of information and content that was discussed in the lead but never brought up again. The content is up to date. There is not really any content that does not belong since it is all relevant to the topic, but some of the content needs more background history to be understood. The article does not deal with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps, it does not deal with any topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

The article is neutral. There are not any biased claims towards any particular position. Most viewpoints are underrepresented since they were mentioned in the lead but not talked about again. Depending on the reader, some viewpoints can be overrepresented if they don't have a background history on the points that are talked about. There is not really any minority of fringe points. The article does not persuade the reader in favor of any position.

Sources and References

Not all facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information, in some areas there is no citation at all and it says "citation needed". The sources that are there are thorough and they reflect available literature on the topic. Most of the sources are current except for two which are from the year 2004. The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. They did include historically marginalized individuals, they included a paleontologist and mentioned some other authors in the content. I think that the sources used are reliable, there can be better sources available if more information was to be added to this article. All the links that I checked seemed to work.

Organization and writing quality

The article has its ups and downs, it is well written, concise, and easy to read. The article has no spelling and grammatical errors. The article is not organized enough, it is a bit confusing especially for audiences who are unfamiliar with the topic. I feel like there is potential for it to be better organized and broken down more.

Images and Media

The article doesn't include any images that enhance the understanding of the topic except for one which is an image of a lake in a country that is spoken about in the article. It is very well captioned. The image adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, it is cited with a link to the source but when clicked it says that the source has been suspended. The image is laid out in a visually appealing way.

Talk Page Discussions

There is nothing on the talk page.

Overall impressions

The article's overall status is average, it has its ups and downs. The article's strengths are that it has good and reliable information. Some ways that this article can be improved would be to have more detailed and elaborate information. Another thing would be to have more sources, there aren't enough sources and some of them are outdated. Some paragraphs need more sources because they do not have enough. The article is not fully completed, it is underdeveloped and needs better organization and more essential material. This article needs to be better organized with a better flow of things and more essential information, data, and images.