User:Wikiwikifaith/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: (link)
- Ocean Exploration Ocean exploration
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate
- it relates to the history we have been learning about ocean exploration and navigation

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- yes
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- no
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- no
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- concise

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- yes
Is the content up-to-date?
- has no details after 1969
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- I think it could include more details and dates, there could be more information

Is the article neutral?
- yes , only contains facts in a timeline set up
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- no
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- no
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- no

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- yes, there are even links to other pages
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- the sources are almost the same as the wikipedia page, all of them are timelines on ocean exploration. The page is very similar to all its sources in style and set up
Are the sources current?
- there are sources from 2007, 2016, and 1996
Check a few links. Do they work?
- all links work

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- yes, it is just a timeline that is very concise and easy to understand
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- there were no errors that I could find
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- the article is organized chronologically, not in sections of importance

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- no, the article only includes one image of the ocean and no others that helps explain or illustrate the details given by the article
Are images well-captioned?
- the one image is captioned
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- not sure
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- no

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- there have only been link modifications in the talk page
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- the article is rated as a start-class and is part of the WikiProjects Oceans and Limnology and Oceanography
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- we have gone into more detail than just listing a date and what happened on that date, we have talked about implications of some of the important dates and events in ocean exploration

What is the article's overall status?
- I think that the article is at a very beginner status
What are the article's strengths?
- it has a lot of facts that people interested in the topic can use this article as a starting point to dive deeper into the subject
How can the article be improved?
- If the article was written in a more engaging manner, was split into sections other than one big timeline, and maybe if it was less general it could be improved.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- I think the article is underdeveloped

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 — ~~~~