User:TimNMcN/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: (Aeolian landform)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate
 * This article is very relevant to my research interests, but currently it is not very useful in my opinion.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
As of writing, this lead is: "Aeolian landforms (also known as aeolian bedforms) are features of the Earth's surface produced by either the erosive or constructive action of the wind. These features may be built up from sand or snow [1], or eroded into rock, snow, or ice. Aeolian landforms are commonly observed in sandy deserts and on frozen lakes or sea ice. They have also been observed and studied on other planets, including Mars[2] and Pluto[3]"

The lead's first sentence is fine, but is directly contradicted by the last sentence: these features are not only found on Earth. Further, the lead introduces the sections erosion and deposition, but confusingly the article does not nest these topics under "Mechanisms" where they really belong, and where the lead places them. In my opinion, the lead contains information that is not super relevant and is potentially misleading, for example: "features can be made of sand or snow". In reality they can be made of sand, dust, snow, ice, or rock. However, this information is not really required in the lead.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
What content is present is scattered, poorly cited, and sometimes misleading. Much of the content could be better linked to other articles (i.e. Aeolian processes is linked, but then this article contains a very bad summary of what is already covered much better in Aeolian processes). If I were to improve this article I would basically start from scratch.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance are fine.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are quite lacking throughout and do not display the full breadth of the literature in a meaningful way. Most sources are from 2000 onward, but this ignores the foundational work in the field. Most of the sources are books, which are not primary sources.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
As above, the mechanisms sections need to be subsections, and need to be fleshed out and expanded. The links at the end to types of landforms should be better integrated into the article.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
The figures are quite lacking, and do not display the diversity of features described in the article. The lone figure is not really useful, although it does abide by the regulations and is captioned.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
There is only one comment from the internet archive bot. The article is rated as start class, mid importance, and is part of the Geography WikiProject.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
This article is overall just very lacking. It is poorly-formatted, lacks useful citation, and is not clear nor complete. clarity and completeness.

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: