User:Morgan.emma/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.

• Mountaintop removal mining: Mountaintop removal mining#Environmental and health impacts
• This article caught my attention because I've done a lot of hiking in the northeastern region of the US, including parts of the Appalachians. I am interested in learning more about the process and environmental impacts of mountain top mining.

Lead

Lead Evaluation

The lead includes a concise, yet informative sentence that clearly highlights the focus of the article: Mountaintop removal mining. The historical context phrasing is slightly awkward and could be reworded and expanded upon. The lead includes a brief description of the article's sections; however, it could be more specific in addressing the controversy of the practice. Environmental and health impacts, as well as current legislation regarding these issues are not addressed in the lead. The lead is concise, however it has the flexibility to incorporate more details without becoming too verbose or repetitive. Providing an overview of the sections that are going to be discussed throughout the article will create a more effective introduction and will effectively establish the expectations of the piece for the reader. This in turn, will help keep the article focused and organized. Specifically, mentioning environmental and health impacts that will be discussed will simultaneously highlight the controversy of mountaintop removal mining and will facilitate smoother transitions within the article

Content

All included content is relevant to the topic of mountaintop removal mining. However, many of the studies and statistics appear to be outdated. Specifically, the estimated land cleared due to MTM and the rates that deforestation is occurring refers to estimates made in 2012 and 2010, respectively. It would be interesting to see what the most recent statistics show compared to previous years in order to provide a more accurate picture of how MTM is evolving. I think the historical context of MTM could go more in depth, potentially as its own subheading. I also think that the process of reclamation could be explained with examples of areas that have attempted to successfully mitigate the damage from MTM. Comparing the recorded impacts of various areas in the eastern region of the US could also use updating with more recent statistics and estimates. The restoration process could be its own heading and section because there is a lot of missing information in regard to the steps and success of this process. The legislation section includes a lot of relevant information and could potentially transition very smoothly into a specific case study about a 2007 ruling focused on the Clean Water Act. The legislation section ends on a suspension declared in 2019 on MTM permitting, the status of this suspension should be included as of 2020. The article can improve upon addressing topics related to historically underrepresented populations by focusing on all the factors that make particular communities more vulnerable to the effects of MTM. This can be expanded upon by exploring the intersection of healthcare, education, race and poverty; especially in the Appalachia region. It would also be interesting to include the historical context of the geographic region. Case studies of interest and relevance should be pursued with the consideration of utilizing the contributions of studies by women in the STEM field in order to diversify the support of the topic.

• 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?

Tone and Balance

Overall, the tone throughout the article is pretty neutral. However, there are some areas and particular word choice that could be improved to be more specific and convey greater neutrality in regard to tone. For example, when discussing the safety of this process compared to underground mining the coal industry is the only professional opinion listed as asserting its overall safety. I think this addition would be more solid coming from a different source or an additional source. Additionally, words like "critics" and "proponents" can be more specific to accurately portray the opposing groups on this issue. Additional case studies can be included to highlight underrepresented groups, such as the communities directly impacted by MTM in terms of increased health risk as well as the ecosystems at risk. Specific case studies on species that are affected or at risk will help emphasize the threat that MTM poses to biodiversity. The article does not attempt to persuade and I appreciate the Art, entertainment, and media suggestions at the end of the article as a creative follow up for more information.

• 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?

Sources and References

The facts appear to be backed up by the majority of reliable sources, the only questionable sources that I noticed were a few news articles that may have presented inherent bias within the article, but the information from them is not presented with bias in the wiki article. Upon further reading into the news based sources, the information is very relevant to maintain updates on court appeals and approval of regulations or rulings. One source that I found to be particularly interesting was an article referenced from the Charlestown Gazette expressing the need for a mining impact on species report. The legal battle pursued by environmental groups is constantly evolving with the emergence of new scientific studies and reviews. I think news sources like this that highlight the motivation and progress of the environmental legal battle are effective when used in conjunction with published scientific literature. However, the current state of the article needs updated information in regard to the progress of these groups and legislation. The majority of the sources are published EPA studies, law reviews, government departments, science reviews, and alternative media like documentaries. There are a wide variety of sources used that are relevant to the topic, but I think new sources would be beneficial to enhancing relevancy by including more current reviews and sources, especially within the legislation section. I think it would be important to include a section under art, entertainment, and media at the end of the article specifically dedicated to include the work and voices of historically marginalized individuals in order to provide a more prominent platform and increase access to their work. I did not encounter any links that did not work.

• 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?

Organization

Guiding questions

The article is concise and easy to read at certain parts, however other sections need to be reworked in terms of wording and overall timeline. Further case studies on previous legal battles with communities as well as biodiversity studies can help to improve overall understanding of this multidimensional process. Article organization could use improvements, such as including a restoration section within or after the processes. This section will transition smoothly before or after environmental concerns are addressed. The legislation section could be organized by year so it does not jump around from year to year but moves through the history of MTM legislation in order with corresponding events. Some sections are poorly worded/ written and can be edited to improve clarity and readability.

• 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?

Images and Media

Guiding questions

I think a more detailed/ visually appealing graphic demonstrating how the process works should be included. It would also be interesting to include restoration photos if possible or photos of filled in valleys. Images that are currently included all have effective/ clear captions. I think the images could be larger on some pages where it seems like there is more room for photos (like on the first page). After reviewing the talk page, it appears that a photo of a filled in valley has been searched for with no success. I wonder if there are currently any updated images available to include of this process/ effect.

• 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?

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions

Legislative updates since 2008 are listed as an awaiting task. It is rated as a start-class and is of interest to the following topics: mining, environment, Appalachia, and energy. The talk page featured many conversations discussing what was actually relevant to the process and what components should be included. There has also been a lot of effort towards finding an appropriate valley fill photo and there doesn't seem to be any recent progress. Additionally, the bias present in this article is mentioned quite frequently throughout the talk page. The majority of conversations are centered around eliminating/ editing the embedded POV information and wording. The neutral tone is not consistent through specific word choice and lack of specific words to describe opposing groups. Wikipedia is very thorough with the way in which is discusses this topic, as even the title was argued to have bias. Apparently mountaintop removal mining is the description provided by environmentalists and is more commonly referred to as simply mountaintop mining. In class we are encouraged to approach all issues and topics from an environmental perspective so this activity will encourage us to interact in a different kind of dialogue centered more on neutrality and presentation of facts, an important skill for future scientific research and assessments.

• 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?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions

The article has a lot of potential but needs major improvements in terms of organization, bias and updated content. The article contains a lot of pertinent legislation information and many other sections that have plenty of room and opportunities to expand upon many of the issues discussed. I think the current state of this article is underdeveloped. The framework is there but it comes across as outdated and not very thorough.

• 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?

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: