User:NAL77/Evaluate an Article

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: (Environmental science)
  • Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
    • I choose to evaluate this article because I have an interest in Environmental Science

Lead[edit]

Guiding questions
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
    • The introductory sentence is not the most concise, but it does clearly describe the article's topic.
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
    • The Lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections.
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
    • The Lead does include information that is not present in the article.
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
    • The Lead is a bit long and has more detail than needed.

Lead evaluation- The lead is overall pretty good.[edit]

Content[edit]

Guiding questions
  • Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
    • The article's content is relevant to the topic/
  • Is the content up-to-date?
    • Yes, the content is up-to-date.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
    • There is no content missing and there is no content that does not belong.

Content evaluation- the content is overall very good.[edit]

Tone and Balance[edit]

Guiding questions
  • Is the article neutral?
    • Yes, the article is neutral.
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
    • There aren't any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
    • There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.
  • Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
    • The article does not attempt to persuade the reader.

Tone and balance evaluation- the tone and balance are overall pretty good.[edit]

Sources and References[edit]

Guiding questions
  • Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
    • The facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
    • The sources are thorough and they do reflect the available literature on the topic.
  • Are the sources current?
    • Yes, the sources are current.
  • Check a few links. Do they work?
    • The links do work.

Sources and references evaluation- the sources and references are overall very good.[edit]

Organization[edit]

Guiding questions
  • Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
    • The article is well-written. It is easy to read, clear, and overall concise.
  • Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
    • The article does not have any spelling or grammatical errors.
  • Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
    • The article is well-organized. It is broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

Organization evaluation- the organization is overall very good.[edit]

Images and Media[edit]

Guiding questions
  • Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
    • The article does include images that enhance the understanding of the topic.
  • Are images well-captioned?
    • The images are well-captioned.
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
    • The images do adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
    • The images are laid out in a visually appealing way.

Images and media evaluation- the images and media are overall very good.[edit]

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?
    • There are insightful and engaging conversations that are going on behind the scenes.
  • How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
    • The article is rated C-class. It is a part of three WikiProjects, for Environment, Technology, and Science.
  • How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
    • Wikipedia is more in depth with this topic.

Talk page evaluation- the talk page is overall pretty good.[edit]

Overall impressions[edit]

Guiding questions
  • What is the article's overall status?
    • The article's overall status is that it is rated C-class.
  • What are the article's strengths?
    • The organization, which is one of the article's strength, is extremely well. Also, the tone of the article is very well since it doesn't try to persuade the reader.
  • How can the article be improved?
    • The lead can be more concise.
  • How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
    • The article is mostly well-developed, but it is missing just a little information.

Overall evaluation- overall the article is very good.[edit]

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: