User:Wnfrase/Evaluate an Article


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Everything was relevant. The only thing that really distracted me was how short the section on 'ecological footprint at the individual level' was.


 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

The concept of an ecological footprint is pretty young, so I'd say most of the information is up to date. I'm interested to know if there have been more recent global ecological footprint studies done since the one mentioned in 2018.


 * Can you identify any notable equity gaps? Does the article underrepresent or misrepresent historically marginalized populations?

No. It looked good.


 * What else could be improved?

A section on what pieces of 'standards of living' create the largest or most significant footprints would be nice.


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

I would say that it is neutral. It shows the main proponents of the ecological footprints side as well as a whole section on criticism.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Like I mentioned earlier, the section on "Ecological footprint at the individual level" was very short.


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

They work. They do support the claims.


 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Yes. Scientific studies. They are neutral.


 * Do the sources come from a diverse array of authors and publications?

Yes, very diverse.


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

The critiques section was a hot topic for a little while. It seems like in 2015 it was updated fully. There was some off-topic text that was removed in 2020.


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

These were the categories at the bottom of the talk page:


 * B-Class Economics articles
 * Mid-importance Economics articles
 * WikiProject Economics articles
 * B-Class Environment articles
 * High-importance Environment articles
 * Sustainability task force articles
 * B-Class sociology articles


 * Low-importance sociology articles


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

We haven't talked about it in class. It does seem like it's a lot more formal than the way we are taught things.