User:Tingserg/sandbox

Article: Global Food Security Index

Global Food Production
Food security differs around the world, with some regions being much more prone to food insecurity due to both lack of fertile land, as well as capital that could procure sufficient food through the purchasing of imports. This demand for food is steadily growing, especially in developing countries, with studies showing it's likely to grow between 70-100% over the next four decades. Much research is underway to increase the productivity of crops, and therefore cultivate a greater volume of food. But, unless that research extends to countries characterized by poor, high-density populations, Global Food Security Index scores are likely to decrease in the coming years. However, some journals, such as Sciendo, suggest that imports play the biggest role in producing these index scores, as in developing countries, a much greater percentage of the working force is dedicated to agriculture, yet they remain the countries with the lowest Global Food Security Index Scores. This is further illustrated by the fact that the United States and Singapore consistently have the two highest Global Food Security Index scores, despite the fact that the portion of their respective economies dealing with agriculture is comparatively negligible.

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

Option 1

 * Article title
 * Women's Environment & Development Organization


 * Article Evaluation
 * The article is extremely barren, and there was not much use of citations from various sources. The article is written neutrally, however, and as this is a feminist group, the equity gap is tackled here. Although this article is extremely relevant to the UN's Sustainable Development goals, I don't think there's enough free information on the subject for me to both read three journals while ensuring others on Wikipedia won't hit a paywall trying to look at my sources.


 * Sources

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Sustainable industries


 * Article Evaluation
 * The article is written with a neutral tone, but the present information can be greatly expanded upon. There is no talk of any industries that are sustainable, or attempting to move towards sustainability, and thus I think it provides an incomplete picture of the topic. Each claim has a citation, and the grammar and spelling is all in order, which I would continue in my additional edits.


 * Sources

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Global Food Security Index


 * Article Evaluation
 * The article is comprised only of a list of criteria the Global Food Security Index uses to rank countries. It does not elaborate at all on these standards, nor mention which countries fall where, and what regions of the world are more prone to low scores. There's no grammatical or spelling errors, as that'd be quite difficult to do considering how little is written.


 * Sources

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Life-cycle Engineering


 * Article Evaluation
 * The article has more information than the first three I have looked at, but according to the talk page, some of the information is misleading and should be corrected in order to provide the best information and an overall more accurate picture. There are only ten sources, and despite being a topic that would impact the whole world, there does not seem to be any articles that would help close the equity gap.


 * Sources

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Feminist Security Studies


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is arguably the most complete out of the ones I have evaluated. The grammar and spelling all seems to be in order, and the article itself is very structured. Once more, as this topic details feminism, it tackles the equity gap, especially since it details looking at works of literature through a feminist lens.


 * Sources

Evaluate an article[edit]
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * 2010s in United States Political History (2010s in United States political history)
 * I went to the C-class articles and decided to review this as we are focusing on sustainability goals in the world, and the US, being one of the most powerful countries, would have a huge impact in this area.

Lead[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead immediately states it is a summary of the largest American political events in that decade.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, it describes that they are in chronological order.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, it provides a very brief overview.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It's very precise.

Lead evaluation[edit]

 * The lead immediately states it is a summary of the largest American political events in that decade, and describes the chronological order of said events. It provides a concise, brief overview and includes only information that is found in the remainder of the article.

Content[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is all relevant.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * It's all up-to-date, as these are historical events, so they do not need to be routinely updated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There does not appear to be any missing content.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, as many of these marginalized groups were involved in the major political events of the last decade.

Content evaluation[edit]
The content in the article is all relevant and up to date, and there does not appear to be any missing content. Historically underrepresented populations were discussed, as many of these marginalized groups were involved in the major political events of the last decade.

Tone and Balance[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, I did not sense any tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, it was all very concise and it was apparent they aimed to display just the facts.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Slightly overrepresented anti-Republican sentiments from the public, as well as some Democratic officials.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it does not attempt to persuade in any way.

Tone and balance evaluation[edit]
The article is neutral and it is clear the aim is to just display the facts of the subject. It slightly overrepresented anti-Republican sentiments, but, despite this, it does not attempt to persuade readers in favor of the Democratic party.

Sources and References[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Most of the citations are news websites, most of which have an inherent bias, but the facts they pulled from said sites are reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, they reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, as there are articles from this year.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The diversity of sources is lacking. There was a few Asian authors, but for the most part they were white men.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, all of the links I checked work.

Sources and references evaluation[edit]
Most of the citations are news websites, most of which have an inherent bias, but the facts they pulled from said sites are reliable. The sources reflect the available literature on the topic and the sources were overall current. The diversity of sources is lacking. There was a few Asian authors, but for the most part they were white men. All of the links I checked worked.

Organization[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the overall structure of the article is strong, and it's well written.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, all of the writing seemed to have no grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It's well organized, as the decade is broken down into two-year periods.

Organization evaluation[edit]
The overall structure of the article is strong, and it's well written, and there were no apparent grammatical mistakes or spelling errors. It's well organized, as the decade is broken down into two-year periods.

Images and Media[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, there were no images.
 * 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[edit]
There were no images present on the page.

Checking the talk page[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Most of the conversations on the talk page are just comprised of Wikipedia users thanking others for their contributions.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It's rated C-class and part of WikiProject United States/History, WikiProject Politics/American, WikiProject Years.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We've discussed sustainability goals, but haven't gone into detail on any of the countries that would help bring these goals to fruition.

Talk page evaluation[edit]
Most of the conversations on the talk page are just comprised of Wikipedia users thanking others for their contributions. It's rated C-class and part of WikiProject United States/History, WikiProject Politics/American, WikiProject Years. We've discussed sustainability goals, but haven't gone into detail on any of the countries that would help bring these goals to fruition.

Overall impressions[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It's rated as low-importance, but the content and structure itself is good.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It presents the information in a clear and concise order, and there are no grammatical errors.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * They can mention fewer critiques of the Republican party made by the public, or increase the mention of Democratic party critiques to ensure the article is neutral.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is well-developed and each section has a sufficient amount of information.

Overall evaluation[edit]
The article is rated as low-importance, but the content and structure itself is good. It presents the information in a clear and concise order, and there are no grammatical errors. To improve, they can mention fewer critiques of the Republican party made by the public, or increase the mention of Democratic party critiques to ensure the article is neutral.

Optional activity[edit]

 * 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: