User:Weidnej/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: Red tide
Red Tides were something I initially learned about in undergraduate Biology courses. Evaluating a Wikipedia article is also a part of my current Limnology class.

Guiding questions: The introductory sentence decently describes the article, but fails to acknowledge why these algal blooms are different from others. The lead does not provide a brief description of the entire articles, however a table of contents is provided. The Introductory paragraph appears to be random information about the topic thrown together, that, from what I noticed, was not mentioned later in the article. The Introductory paragraph appears to be overly detailed and not a proper overview of the entire article.

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?

Guiding questions: The articles content is relevant to the topic, and the last algal bloom recording stated was in 2017. This is relatively recent, but there could be more recent information. The reasoning behind why the algal blooms are red would be content that could be added, and more information could be added to the effects these algal blooms have on marine life.

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?

Guiding questions: The article is mostly neutral, but uses some words that could be considered biased. Some word choice portrays algal blooms to be negative, while at the same time says there are harmful and non harmful red tides. I feel as if there is not enough information about the effects on marine life in comparison to the information on the effects to human life. It portrays red tides to be a bad thing (which that might just be because they do harm).

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?

Guiding questions: Some information is lacking sources, including the introductory sentence. The sources provided appear sufficient, although some of the sources are from newspapers, which may be biased. The most recent source is from 2018, which is relatively current. The sources appear to be from a diverse spectrum of authors. The links I clicked worked.

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?

Guiding questions: The article I feel like was organized in a way that did not logically make sense. It went from some more specific section to more general ones. I did not notice grammatical errors, and the information was fairly easy to read.

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?

Guiding questions: The images provided were related to the article, but I do not feel like they enhance the understanding of the topic. The two captions for the photos of red tides were not specific with the locations of the algal bloom. I am unsure if the photos adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The images are displayed in an okay manner, it could be improved.

Guiding questions: There were some comments in the talk page that had similar views to mine about rearranging the article sections. There was also a comment about the accuracy of one of the "well known" red tides in Alabama. This article is rated as a high importance article and is a part of four different Wiki projects. We have talked about algal blooms and the effects on the ability of light to penetrate through water. We have not specifically about red tides.

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?

Guiding questions: The article is at a high status for maintenance. The article brings attention to important topics such as effects on marine life and humans, however it does not present this information in an organized manner. Some of the wording can be changed to be less biased as well as things can be rewritten to logically make more sense. I feel as if the article is currently underdeveloped.

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?

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 — ~~~~