User:Tmahseredjian/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: Gunflint Chert
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

While it is a good introduction to the topic, there is room for delving more deeply into the significance, history, and analytical methods that have been used to study the Gunflint microfauna.

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?

''The Lead is comprised of the opening paragraph, and is a satisfactory introduction to the topic, though it neglects to introduce the importance of the Gunflint Chert/microfauna to the field of geobiology/paleontology. It does introduce the lithology, age, and locality of the Gunflint Chert; however, it aside from a a brief mention of cyanobacteria, there is no explanation as to why the microbial fossils are significant. Additionally, the article does not extend much beyond the Lead. There is a second paragraph introducing Stanley Tyler and Elso Barghoorn, but there is no body of text beyond these two paragraphs.''

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
''The content is relevant to the topic; however, it is only beginning to scratch the surface of the Gunflint Iron Formation/Gunflint microfauna. There are only 5 citations, of which 4 are scholarly articles, and 3 are listed referencing a specific sentence or paragraph in the article. A deeper literature search is likely in order.''

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 article appears to be neutral, but of the two seminal papers that originally introduced the Gunflint Chert, only one is represented. It is not necessarily biased, but lacks the viewpoint of the second paper (Cloud 1965) and the subsequent scholarly articles for which it laid the groundwork.''

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 article includes four citations to relevant scholarly articles; however, many of the points in the wikipedia article are uncited. Additionally, the most recent cited work was published in 2005, and there is a decent body of literature relating to the Gunflint Chert that has been published since then. Only two of the links to scholarly articles appear to be functional links.''

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
''The two paragraphs in the article are well written, but it is difficult to satisfactorily describe the Gunflint Chert and its paleobiological/paleoenvironmental significance in such a short piece of writing. The article would benefit from a stronger outline (for example: introduction, history, analytical methods, stratigraphic section/lithology, paleobiological significance, etc.) from which a stronger article can be built.''

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
''There is a single image of a slab from the Gunflint Iron Formation. The caption the image reference the potential for microorganisms, but does not elaborate much further, and does not explain the irregularities (potential microfossils?) that comprise the fabric of the slab. Additionally, the image lacks a scale.''

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
''The Talk page for Gunflint Chert is relatively sparse. The two main threads debate the age of the Gunflint Chert, and whether or not the 'C' in chert should be capitalized.''

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
''Overall, there is some good material introducing the Gunflint Chert, but it acts more as an introductory paragraph than a full-fledged wikipedia article. The article would benefit from a stronger outline, a fuller article body, and a more thorough literature search/works cited section to reinforce much of the information presented in the article.''

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: