User:UNCO Abby Hayes/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: Noise pollution
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. This article is listed as a C-class article in the field of acoustics. I am familiar with noise pollution in the context of how this kind of pollution affects urban animals physiologically (noise-induced hearing loss, stress effects, frequency shifts of bird vocalizations, changes in sleep/wake cycles, etc.), so I hope I might have something to contribute here.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, though it could be both more concise and more clear.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes it does.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the lead includes information that children are especially vulnerable to noise but does not describe the basis for this in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think the Lead is a bit too detailed.

Lead evaluation
The Lead does introduce the topics included in the article, but does so in a way that could be edited down for clear and concise writing. The Lead also introduces topics that are not covered in the article, which would be confusing for the reader.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The content is odd. It is relevant to the topic but focuses strangely on the impacts of noise on marine invertebrates.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes! Citations have been updated well with recent evidence.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The section on human health has contradictory information.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Very briefly, this article mentions that noise pollution is higher in communities that are predominantly racial minorities.

Content evaluation
The content is oddly balanced, with quite a lot of the article describing effects on invertebrates. This is good and useful information, and has been kept up-to-date well, but if you were unfamiliar with the topic you might mistakenly think that noise pollution affects these organisms significantly more. Additionally, the section that does address human health and the impacts of noise pollution on humans contains contradictory information. While the Lead introduces that racial minority communities experience higher levels of noise pollution, no further information is provided on this topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? On the main topic of the article, yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article does describe research on invertebrates as "essential" and "important". While I agree, these are opinions.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes, the environmental aspects are thorough, but the mental and physiological effects on humans are underrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
This article is largely neutral, especially regarding the main topic of noise pollution. When describing specific studies, the article does include more opinion-based language. Additionally, the balance of the article favors environmental impacts on invertebrates and underrepresents the mental and physiological effects on humans.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Unclear
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The sources for this article are fairly comprehensive for the field of marine invertebrate biology. Otherwise, sources are inconsistently available to back up statements and are not thorough for the entirety of the article's content. Sources are current and it appears that the links work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? If I got this paper turned in for grading from an undergrad class I would give it a B at best. At times it is too detailed, at other times so concise as to be uninformative.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes. There are many unnecessary commas and articles ("a"/"the").
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I would make several of the major headings sub-headings for the sake of clarity.

Organization evaluation
I would not describe this article as well-organized. The headings make navigating the article confusing. I would make several of the major headings sub-headings to address this. The article also needs some editing for grammar and spelling.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
The images used enhance the understanding of the topic and are well-captioned. I would caveat this statement with: the pictures of sound level meters and hearing protection do not have content backing up their relation to the article. While these topics are related, the article does not express why or how.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? A lot of arguments about the images.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This is a C-class article. It is part of several WikiProjects on engineering and acoustics.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The wikipedians on the talk page are not civil and do not appear to be experts on the topic they are writing about, which is discouraging.

Talk page evaluation
This talk page is full of uncivil arguments about items that are not the main problem of this page. A lot of attention is paid to images, when really the content is a more pressing issue.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? This is a level 5 vital article, C-class.
 * What are the article's strengths? This is an important topic that crosses into several fields.
 * How can the article be improved? The article could be reorganized and content on noise abatement strategies and urban planning should be added.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article seems underdeveloped.

Overall evaluation
This article introduces a very important topic but is poorly organized and oddly balanced. The writing is not concise and focuses primarily on the effects of noise pollution on invertebrates. Overall, the article seems underdeveloped despite how many fields this topic impacts. The article could be improved by reorganizing the content, adding information on noise abatement strategies and urban planning, and deconflicting information on what constitutes noise pollution.

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: