User:Wachala/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: Drainage Basin
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate
 * I chose this article because "drainage basin" was recent terminology used in our first Limnology lecture.

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
The Lead does include an introductory sentence that does a good job of defining and summarizing the article topic. However, I believe the structure of the following sentences could be reformatted to be more cohesive and have a much better flow. I would not consider this lead to be overly detailed. It is rather concise, but can be improved upon with the minor editing arrangements. The Lead does not include a description of the major sections of the article. In fact, it appears than none of the title words in the content box are used in the Lead to give an idea of the major categories in the rest of the article.

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
The article's major headers and sub-headers are all related to the topic of "drainage basin". While I would not say that there is content that does not belong, I would say there is content that could be expanded and approved upon. For example, the geomorphology section is fairly sparse, and makes me question why an editor would insert a topic into the page if they only had two sentences to add on that subject. I would suggest either adding more text to the geomorphology section, or removing it. As it stands, I don't think those two sentences really add more to the article. The "catchment factors" section is helpful in the sense that is helps the reader determine factors influencing drainage basins, but I think each section should have a specific drainage basin example for each factor. For example, in the "Land use" section: "Ground permeability has a drastic impact on drainage basins. It is common to see lower ground permeability in large cities, like Milwaukee, where there is a high concentration of paved roads, sidewalks, and concrete buildings. During storms, and other precipitation based weather events, the water runoff will be redirected to the city's drainage systems, where the water then flows into the Milwaukee River and on to Lake Michigan. When there are high concentrations of nonporous surfaces, water cannot saturate the soil. Because of this, groundwater absorption in large and growing cities has become an increasing problem."

While there are some older sources from 1998, there are at least two sources from 2019. The page was also last edited on Sept 3, 2020 at 4:29pm. So, I would consider this page to be up-to-date.

I do not believe this article covers one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

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
The article appears to be neutral, with the only political reference being that of how drainage basins can determine political boundaries. So, the mention of politics here is important and does not try to sway the reader's opinion for or against any party or country. No claims appear to be biased or misrepresented. The only piece of this article that may be seen as bias is the units of measurement. Although the metric system is accepted by most countries (with the exception of the United States, Liberia, and Burma), one could argue that there should be multiple units of measurements and conversions given, rather than just the metric units.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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: