User:UMightyMet/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: Fallstreak hole
 * I have chosen this topic as my article-review due to my observations and curiosity of "fallstreak hole" clouds. While I have a minimum understanding that these clouds have something to do with the Bergeron Process -- which we have briefly discussed already in class, I thought it worthwhile to read up more about the topic.

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
Regarding this article's lead: I agree it opens with a clear and concise explanation of what a fallstreak hole cloud is. Unfortunately, I found this article to be rather short, so there are not many additional sections/ descriptions of what is to come in the article. Information is included within the article to branch into different related topics (such as the Bergeron Process), but overall the article was not very detailed. Instead, it offers a very broad description of the topic in which further investigation into provided links throughout would perhaps help a reader to piece things together themselves given a pre-understanding of cloud processes.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
Regarding this article's content: As stated above, this is a rather short article. Most included information seems up-to-date and is relevant to the topic, though a more thorough incorporation of detail would improve the current state as opposed to just providing links.

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
Regarding this article's tone and balance: I was not under any impression that this article strayed from a neutral standpoint at any point. The author(s) presented statements with no undertone of opinion.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Regarding this article's sources and references: This area of the article could benefit from some further attention. The author(s) did incorporate some valid resources and provide a broad incorporation of items; however, much more research could be done to enhance this article topic. Specifically, by adding more detail to the article in general, and expand upon components glossed over currently, that could really pull in and utilize/highlight more resources or references to solidify the confidence in the article.

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
Regarding this article's organization: Again, this is another area that with more detail could really enhance the current state. The article is well-written and easy to read as is; however, it seems very rushed and non-descriptive. The flow of the article transitioned fairly well, though I think this could be broken into specific sections and expanded on.

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
Regarding this article's images and media: Fantastic examples! Nicely oriented on the page. The images provided clearly illustrations of what these fallstreak hole clouds look like. It was not clear what sources these images originated from in the captions/ whether they follow Wikipedia's copyright regulations; however the location(s) and date/time(s) are nicely included on each of the images provided.

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
In regard to this article's talk page: Minimal conversations have occurred; the most common items discussed are photo rights/ offering to provide additional imagery. In addition, cloud seeding as a potential add on has also been pitched. The article is currently rated as Stub-class of low importance and is a part of the WikiProject Meteorology.

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
As an overall evaluation, this article has incredible potential to be built upon. The imagery provided nicely illustrates the phenomena (though the copyright restrictions need to be assessed). A broad "outline" of sort has been provided, though due to the article's appearing to be rushed nature, expansion on the current state would not only improve the integrity of the article but open the door to further subtopics. In conclusion, this article is underdeveloped in the current state.

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: