User:Globemallows/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article
[edit]This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article:Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- I chose this article because I am taking a class in environmental toxicology, and I am interested in seeing how up to date the information on bioaccumulative pollutants are.
Lead
[edit]- 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
[edit]The Lead includes a couple of sentences introducing the topic, but it does not go into enough detail to describe all of the major sections of the article. The sections, however, can easily be seen in the table of contents. The Lead does not include any information that is not addressed in the article, and it is concise.
[edit]Content
[edit]- 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
[edit]- The content within the article is relevant; however, most of the references are old. I see very few citations from articles published in the last decade. I think a valuable section that could be added is human health effects of major PBTs. This section could also touch on environmental justice and pollutants affecting underrepresented/ minority communities.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- 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
[edit]There are no biased positions taken in the article, and it does not try to persuade the reader to any side of the topic. The article looks at the effects and regulations of pollutants of several countries; however, it seems to focus mainly on regulations in the U.S..
Sources and References
[edit]- 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
[edit]The facts come from reliable scientific studies and other trustworthy sources. The sources are thorough, but they are not current. I think there has been a great deal more research over the past few years that can be included. Many of the sources appear to come from the Western part of the world, so the authors could be more diverse. The links in the article work.
Organization
[edit]- 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
[edit]The article is concise and easy to read, without any noticeable grammatical or spelling errors. The article is broken down in a logical manner, and the different sections are manageable and well organized.
Images and Media
[edit]- 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
[edit]This article does not contain any images or other media. I think it would be helpful to include structures of compounds or maps detailing hotspots of PBTs.
Checking the talk page
[edit]- 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
[edit]I did not see any conversations for this article. The article is part of four Wikiprojects and is rated C-class. This Wikipedia article is much more broad and does not address a lot of the human effects like we've discussed in class.
Overall impressions
[edit]- 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
[edit]This article provides a good overview with some examples of PBTs, but it has lots of room to go into more detail. I like that it provided a few real world examples and talked about the major PBTs. I think the article lacks images and other visual components, and more up to date findings, especially on human health affects.
Optional activity
[edit]- 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: