User:Zoeduffield/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: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Still_River_(Housatonic_River_tributary)&action=edit
 * This article was assigned as a class project. I chose this article specifically because water related pollution is a topic I have some experience in, and am passionate about.

Lead evaluation
The Lead paragraph does not include a clear introductory sentence that concisely describes the article's topic. It lacks a general overview of the article's major sections, as well as a focus and relevant background. The paragraph merely states the location of the river, and does not give insight to any main topics of the article as a whole. It is too short of a section to properly introduce the rest of the article's points and sections.

Content evaluation
Some of the article's content is relevant, but it lacks additional information to make a clear topic. The pollution section lacks relevance of mercury pollution to the surrounding environment which hinders the significance of the section. The effects of mercury and its role in the pollution and state of the river makes up much of the missing content, and there are no other references to other possible pollutants. The ecotoxicology perspective in lacking, not only in the pollution section, but the other sections such as the conservation section, which is also relevant to ecotoxicology.

Tone and balance evaluation
Although the tone of the article does remain relatively neutral, it lacks an depth and clarity in the points it is trying to get across. Rather than viewpoints, there seem to be facts stated without much information to gather into a topic or focus.

Sources and references evaluation
Not all sources and references are backed up by a reliable source. The second reference listed in simply a powerpoint on mercury and its environmental effects with two names listed as authors. There is no information of the reliability of this powerpoint, and these effects are not even stated with the article. The third source does link to an academic website, but not the specific section from which information was pulled. It is unclear with certain references who the authors are. The link to the Still River Alliance leads to a European website that is completely irrelevant.

Organization evaluation
The organization of the article is very broad, without much direction and flow. The sentences in each section are not well organized, and most state general facts that cannot be compiled into an overall viewpoint or topic. The pollution section skims over the effect mercury had on the river at the end, and hints to its recovery, but is underdeveloped and vague. Certain sentences within sections do not stand alone well, and lack an introductory sentence that gives context.

Images and media evaluation
There are not any images besides a small picture of the mouth of the river at the top of the article. This one image is well-captioned, in that it gives context to the picture besides just describing what it is. It may be helpful for there to be more pictures added in other sections to further enhance the article.

Talk page evaluation
There is only one post so far on the talk page regarding editing an external link on the article. Benjamin has also added a note citing a bad external link. There are no conversations regarding the topic of the article. The article is rated "start-class" indicating that there is not a lot of content.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article has potential, but it is clearly in the beginning stages. The information that is currently there is not necessarily false, but there are significant knowledge gaps that are preventing the article from finding a central topic or focus. Right now, the article is merely a short introduction on the background and history of the river that includes a short section on one pollution issue. The discussion on this issue is not talked about in depth, and each section overall is vague. Not much seems to need taking away from the article, it is more a matter of adding more information and discussion.