User:Chemkatz/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because we're studying this topic, it matters because some of the references are not up to date, and my preliminary impression is that this page is very good but could use improvement.

Evaluate the article

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? yes
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic? yes
- Is the content up-to-date? mostly
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I'll check
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? I don't think so.
- Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I don't think so.
  - Is the article from a neutral point of view? It gives published criticism of the facts it presents
  - Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
  - Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
  - Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? yes
  - Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no
    - Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? That's what I plan to check
    - Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? That's what I plan to check
    - Are the sources current? some aren't
    - Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? This topic hasn't been studied by a diverse spectrum of authors
    - 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'll dig
    - Check a few links. Do they work? The one's I've checked do work.
      - 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? not that I've seen
      - Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes
        Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? there's one under review
        
        Are images well-captioned? yes
        
        Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? not sure
        
        Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes
        What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? they're old. Just one about an image
        
        How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? it's part of a wikiproject about water
        
        How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I didn't know that Australia doesn't accept the water footprint as a concept.
        What is the article's overall status? C-class
        
        What are the article's strengths? It's interesting
        
        How can the article be improved? It's not yet a B-class
        
        How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It seems to need more on water use in countries.

I have no idea where this will be published. I'm testing out this assignment for my students. I'm still confused.