User:The Gneiss Guys/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: Edwards Aquifer
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? Yes, includes table of contents
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? ?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Very thorough but not overdone. Could use more detail in some sections

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Could use some more content on overall chemistry
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? Most are 2000's, some are older
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I am aware of
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Modification of external links, dependence of certain cities in regards to the aquifer
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? No articles, mainly discussions of info, and one article about dependence to the aquifer
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? More summarized and unbiased, doesn't really get into the gritty details of chemistry

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved? More in depth of the chemistry behind the aquifer. Discusses water quality in a small paragraph and can easily expand the topic into more detail.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think the article is very organized with an in depth table of contents. However, I think that it should include more information about the chemistry behind the water quality of the aquifer. Also needs more sources for verification

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: