User:Tpc1999/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: (link) Biomagnification
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chose this article to evaluate because biomagnification has been something that amazed me since first learning about it in an introduction to environmental science class in high school. I remember learning about DDT and its effects on birds and it really resonated with me.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It has a lead but I would not say it is great. It very briefly states other common terms and a vague description of what it is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does not allude to the future sections, just contains the contents box.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead does include further information on what was mentioned in it, throughout the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I would say the lead is in between, short and sweet, not very detailed, but I do think it is missing some information that should be in there.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The articles content is relevant, there is nothing in the article that does not related to biomagnification.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Biomagnification is not an outdated topic, but I do believe more recent sources and data will improve this article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I would not say there is content that "doesn't" belong, but I do think a lot of information could be changed to be more informative.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? This article does not deal with any.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? I would say this article is very neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are not.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There are not.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? This article does not attempt this.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not all facts are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources used do reflect the literature.
 * Are the sources current? No I would not say these sources are current, all but one are before 2005, mostly in the 90's.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There are very few sources so I would not say they are written by a diverse spectrum, two are from the EPA site.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Some links in the article seem to work, some do not. Nearly all of the sources in the references section do not contain a direct link to its original article.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is short, but not necessarily in a good way, there is a lot that could be added to this article. Regarding clarity or readability there are many oddly worded sentences, and could be better organized.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not notice spelling errors, but I did notice grammatical errors and some run on sentences, some better organization would improve this article greatly!
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There are sections of major points but I do believe these sections could be more concise, possibly broken down further.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article includes 3 small and basic diagrams showing buildup of a substance as the food chain increases. I would like to add photos or diagrams showing what the toxins actually do in the body.
 * Are images well-captioned? The diagrams are not titles but have a small caption explaining what they are representing below.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? To my best knowledge these diagrams were generated by the author using properly sourced generic images from the internet, each of these images has a direct link to the original content where they are from. I will look into this further while editing or make edits if possible.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The images are laid out in a simple row one after another. I think breaking them up throughout the article would make them more visually appealing and would make more sense to refer to them.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are many examples of real like biomagnification instances that could be important to add into this article rather than just link them as related topics, half life and possible biomagnification of radioactives which is very interesting.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is a part of a few wiki projects that include, Wikiproject medicine, Wikiproject ecology as well as Wikiproject environment.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The way wikipedia discusses about this topic does not differer much from what we have talked about in class, there are many similar topics like DDT, heavy metals and a few other small topics. The only thing that was new to me was the concept of radiation, overall it seems like we went into far greater detail in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? I would cal the article "fair" not good. There are many improvements possible and I hope I am able to contribute to man regarding ecotoxicology.
 * What are the article's strengths? Some strengths of the article is that it does not include "confusing" information. This article is very simple and fairly easy to follow if you already have some knowledge of biomagnification.
 * How can the article be improved? The main weaknesses in this article is that it lacks sources, information and examples in order to properly inform someone who has never learned about this topic.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? This article is underdeveloped. Biomagnification is a large topic regarding the environment so I am definitely surprised there is not better information on it.

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: