User:Macwilliams3/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
Sources and ReferencesA Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article because gold is one of the most sought after mineral resource in the world, and this course is aimed at resources of the Earth. It is also important to understand the process by which we can exhume these deposits. My preliminary impression was that the article was structured well and was very informative.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead Section:
There is a clear introductory sentence that describes the topic. No brief description of the major sections in the lead, could be something to change. The section does not contain any information that is not present in the article and is concise with a good amount of detail.
Content:
The content in the article is as relevant up-to-date as you can be with such an old practice. I was not able to find anything that didn’t belong, although there is much more that could be added on the safety section and on indigenous relations. This article does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations.
Evaluating Tone:
The article is mostly neutral but seems to lean towards the side of pro-mining when many people don’t agree with the environmental factors that come with mining. The viewpoints of environmental activists are underrepresented. The links in the article work and the source supports the claims of the article. No bias and referenced properly. The sources mainly come from other Wikipedia articles.
Checking the talk page:
There is a conversation on the importance of the article and having proper information for it, it is rated C-Class on the project’s quality scale. It is rated C-class and is a part of WikiProject Mining. Wikipedia discusses this topic a bit more broadly than our specific facts.