User:VUcnic/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Water resources law

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is an important topic that seems to be missing some information. Additionally, law is an area that I am interested in.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes.


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes.


 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)

No.


 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Very concise.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Not really


 * Is the content up-to-date?

No, last edited in January 2021.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Yes, lots of missing content.


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

No.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view?

Yes.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Yes. No mention of any non-western nations (other than Australia).


 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

I didn't see any of those.


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes.


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

Not really.


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

I would check actually laws and regulations.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

No.


 * Are images well-captioned?

N/A


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Yes.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

N/A

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

Adding new sections, focusing on specific areas and types of water, saying the page is not even really about water law and regulations.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

Rated of high importance.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

A little relevant to the Yale professor discussion about water issues, but no mention of the safe drinking water act.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?

I think it's really lacking.


 * What are the article's strengths?

It has a good base framework, but not much else.


 * How can the article be improved?

Add more history, more places, and more actually laws and regulations.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Underdeveloped.