User:VUWirk/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Virtual water

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article because we have talked about the concept of virtual water in class and are currently working on an assignment about it.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

The leading sentence does a great job of introducing the topic and defining what it is, it also does a good job of incorporating a brief description of the other sections of the article to come. There was no information in the lead that was not expanded upon in the rest of the article, and it was concise.

Content:

The content of the article is only information that is relevant to the topic, and the content is up to date. There is no missing content and no content that does not belong. The article very slightly touches on the equity gap, with information about how virtual water can affect water-scarce and less wealthy countries.

Tone and Balance:

The article is written from a neutral point of view and there are no heavily biased claims. Each viewpoint is represented equally, and there is no indication of the authors pursuit of persuasion.

Sources and References:

Almost everything written in the article is backed up with a source and the sources are current. The sources seem to come from a range of authors, and they work when clicked on. With just a little bit of digging, however, I was able to find reputable sources that had more information that could be added.

Organization and Writing Quality:

The article is organized well and is concise, however there are some spelling and grammar issues that make certain parts unclear to the reader.

Images and Media:

There are no images, however there is a chart that is very helpful in understanding the virtual water footprint of different products.

Talk Page Discussion:

The article is rated C, and it is a part of the WikiProjects on Water and Economics. Wikipedia gets more into the economic side of virtual water, whereas in class we discussed the environmental and personal implications.

Overall Impressions:

The strengths of this article are that it is concise and lays a good overview of the topic, but it can get more into the environmental impacts and go a little bit more in to depth on the noneconomic aspects. This article is almost complete, but some more research and additions are needed to fully complete it.