User:Theleot/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Lead evaluation

 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No. The lead is full of awkwardly phrased and sometimes even ungrammatical sentences which fail to summarize the topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No. Of the six main sections, the lead introduces only one.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. The lead includes mention of nori's flavor, drying aspects of the production process, and methods of packaging, none of which are present in the main article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead somehow manages to be neither. It is both rambling (i.e., not concise) and incomplete (i.e., missing details).

''The lead is, frankly, a mess. It's written awkwardly, fails to introduce major sections, and includes information absent in those sections. It also lacks a single reference. If I choose this article, reworking the lead is priority number one.''

Content evaluation

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Largely, yes. However, a closer inspection of the 'Nutrition' section reveals a broad focus on all raw seaweeds rather than nori, a particular genus of seaweed.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The article cites twelve 21st century sources, making it reasonably up-to-date in my estimation.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The article is claimed by 3 WikiProjects. WikiProject 'Algae' and 'Food and Drink' rate it start-class, but 'Japan Food and Drink' rates it c-class, indicating that the article does a decent job of describing nori's role in Japanese cuisine but falls short of successfully describing it in botanical terms.

''There are some minor issues with content but nothing of serious concern. The article was written by a few contributors with specific interests so there's a definite lack of a basic overview.''

Tone and Balance evaluation

 * Is the article neutral? Maybe? A look at the talk page reveals some (civilized) argument around where the practice of eating nori began--Japan or Korea. I haven't done enough research to know which seems more accurate, but the presence of the argument might suggest the article isn't entirely neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Nothing so extreme as to be called 'heavily biased.'
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There is much more discussion of the health benefits of consuming nori than the health risks. This might simply be because there are more benefits than there are risks, but it could also suggest the underrepresentation of health risks.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

The article is notably biased in the sense that the balance of content is out of line with similar food articles but there doesn't appear to be a contributor actively promoting a particular view.

Sources and References evaluation

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All sources seem reasonably reliable, but the writer(s) have done some synthesis of information that is generally avoided on Wikipedia.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? 18 is a decent number of sources for an article of this size. They are fairly diverse, including newspaper articles, academic publications, books, and governmental resources.
 * Are the sources current? As mentioned previously, the article cites twelve 21st century sources, making it reasonably up-to-date in my estimation.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? I only found one broken link, which instead of linking to a particular article just links to the website's homepage.

Sources and references are above average, if flawed.

Organization evaluation

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I feel the article is too narrow in scope and sometimes more detailed than necessary. That said, it is quite rare to delete content on Wikipedia simply because it's more detail than most people are interested in reading about.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? The lead is poorly written but the rest follows conventions quite well.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. The article includes history, production, culinary use, and nutrition. However, the relative amounts of information in each topic seems unbalanced. For example, nutrition is better described than culinary use.

Organization is decent but poor content balance makes the structure of the article a little weird.

Images and Media evaluation

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes. The article includes five images and each is relevant and useful.
 * Are images well-captioned? No. The captions are not descriptive enough to be useful to someone who doesn't know what nori is.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes. All images are either original works or old enough to be in the public domain.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Their arrangement isn't necessarily 'pretty,' but the images are placed next to relevant text in most cases.

Images are well-chosen and adhere perfectly with copyright regulations.

Talk page evaluation

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? As mentioned previously, there is some argument regarding where nori was first consumed, a strange discussion of whether nori is Kosher, mention of an anime series, someone raving about how delicious nori is, a suggestion to merge the article with Laverbread, and an investigation into possible plagiarism (it was resolved and luckily no plagiarism was identified).
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? As mentioned previously, the article is claimed by 3 WikiProjects, WikiProject 'Algae' and 'Food and Drink' which rate it start-class and WikiProject 'Japan Food and Drink' which rates it c-class.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We haven't discussed nori yet, but we might!

A healthy, fairly active talk page.

Overall evaluation

 * What is the article's overall status? This article is O.K., but I understand why it has mostly been rated start-class.
 * What are the article's strengths? It covers most of the relevant topics.
 * How can the article be improved? It's poorly balanced and would benefit from reworking to make it more cohesive.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is fairly developed, but not in all good ways. More basic overview content is needed.

''There's a number of little issues and larger scope/content problems with this article. It needs a lot of work and yet the improved result wouldn't look much different than the state it's in now. I really enjoy making major contributions to articles or starting new ones, but this one just needs some rounding and polishing. Given that, after evaluating this article I don't think I'll chose to make it my project. I don't think it would be particularly fun and I find joy is key to good work.''

Lead evaluation

 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content evaluation

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance evaluation

 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References evaluation

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization evaluation

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media evaluation

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

Talk page evaluation

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall evaluation

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Lead evaluation

 * 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. Of the five major sections, only two are mentioned.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. The lead focuses on defining mariculture while the rest of the article expands on aspects of mariculture. This is a common structure on Wikipedia is is not necessarily a problem.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is reasonably concise.

The lead is missing descriptions of major sections but is otherwise in good shape.

Content evaluation

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? No. Most of the content is 15 to 20 years old in a rapidly developing field.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The talk page mentions an absence of abalone farming content, but the article has since been updated.

The page is dated.

Tone and Balance evaluation

 * Is the article neutral? I have some concerns regarding neutrality. I think a representative of Ocean Grown Abalone (https://www.oceangrown.com.au/about/) might have edited the article with the purpose of promoting the company. The entirety of the artificial reefs section is directly or indirectly about their company and its founder. Obviously, there is much to say about artificial reefs which isn't related to abalone, let alone one particular company.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes here is one claim in the artificial reefs section I find suspect:
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The section on artificial reefs overperpesentes the viewpoint that abalone farming results in 'ecosystem enrichment'
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Broadly, no.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Broadly, no.

''I have no doubt that Ocean Grown Abalone is using the Mariculture page to promote their company and industry. This is a serious concern.''

Sources and References evaluation

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No. One source is an report to shareholders of the company Ocean Grown Abalone/
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They seem to.
 * Are the sources current? No, they're quite dated.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Citing a shareholder report is just unacceptable.

Organization evaluation

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is sometimes overly technical but otherwise well-written.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I didn't catch any.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Really nothing to note here.

Images and Media evaluation

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? One image is not which I'll discuss below.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No. After some investigation, I determined that this image does not adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. I have nominated if for deletion. Unfortunately, it was being used by quite a few wikis, e.g., the hebrew Wikipedia's salmon page.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

One image had to be removed from Wikipedia but the others are legal and improve the article.

Talk page evaluation

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? A few people are asking for additional subsections like seaweed and abalone farming. One editor suggested a section on Native Hawaiian fish farming practices.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is part of Marine Life and Fisheries and Fishing. It is rated C-quality high importance in both projects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The article actually includes many of the concerns brought up in class like the infestation and spread of sea lice. The article is simply more broad.

A few good ideas are brought up but not much back and forth conversation has developed.

Overall evaluation

 * What is the article's overall status? Given the breadth of the topic, the article is probably too short. I agree that the article is C class.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article is well organized.
 * How can the article be improved? The lead needs to be more comprehensive in terms of introducing major sections, the content needs to be updated with more current sources, the influence of Ocean Grown Abalone must be addressed and I need to confirm that the copyright for the 3rd image is traced properly, else it must be deleted.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is underdeveloped but the main concerns are those mentioned above. Filling out the content can come later.

This article needed some immediate attention regarding undue commercial influence and copyright concerns which I have addressed, but I'm just not inspired to flesh it out.