User:Ziggy Marmot/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.


 * Aquatic biomonitoring: (Aquatic biomonitoring)
 * I selected this article to evaluate because I am interested in the methods used to monitor terrestrial aquatic environments. I am also interested in honing my skills in scientific communication, specifically about how the scientific method is employed.

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 is more concise than necessary and does not include a brief description of the articles major sections. General examples of how or when aquatic biomonitoring is used, and a list of the different kinds/methods could be included.

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 articles content is relevant to the topic. However, some statements are confusing and need clarification (most of these are noted already). This article would benefit from additional and updated content on various methods of aquatic monitoring and when each would be used. I'm not sure if this article deals with an equity gap, I don't think it does directly.

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 voice is mildly neutral, but there is a lot of talk about "importance" and things being "important". I think this sounds...odd and doesn't necessarily strike an overall neutral tone. There is a heavy emphasis throughout this article on the use of aquatic biomonitoring as way to monitor urban and industrial pollutants. There is also a lot of emphasis the negatives of pollution and development. Which is valid, but perhaps a little bias to one side. I think more could be added to this article about methods used in surveying undocumented aquatic habitats, when monitoring areas in recovery,(i.e. bank stabilization work), etc. This article does not seem persuasive.

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?

Sources and references evaluation
Most of the statements are backed up with a cite, or would be considered general knowledge. There are 10 cites used throughout this article. They are both current and more dated. Aquatic biomonitoring is a broad and diverse topic, It seems that there are likely more sources out there that would strengthen this article. With so few sources, there are likely a diverse spectrum of authors to add to the references. Not all the links work; some do not work at all, others are linked to other places (like, a job website?).

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?

Organization evaluation
This article could use revision. It is concise and, for the most part, clear, but need clarification and elaboration in a few areas. Some of the statements are confusing. The section would be improved with reorganizing and additions. I would propose adding specific sections for "Uses", as when/why aquatic biomonitoring might be employed, and "Methods", for elaborating and providing examples of the different methods a researcher might use.

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?

Images and media evaluation
The images included are of monitoring in practice. The first photo could use a more detailed caption, and the second one is sufficient. I think this article would benefit from additional photos of either key species used to monitor aquatic environments, common equipment, and/or more photos of monitoring efforts in practice.

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?

Talk page evaluation
It seems there was one big attempt to overhaul this page about two years ago by a fellow student editor. Here is where the discussions on pollution and extinction were added. These are also the sections that contain confusing sentences, or statements that need clarification. About a decade ago, another user clarified that biomonitoring (chemistry) had been separated from this article. However, it seems for the most part this article has been left by and large alone.

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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, this article needs work. Its under developed. Areas of improvement would include: restructuring the sections, developing the various methods of biomonitoring, adding a broader description of applications, and, as always, more sources.

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: