User:BenjaminKahn/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.

Carbon capture and storage in Australia
I am interested in this topic because I am interested in policies relating to carbon pricing and carbon sequestration, and would like to learn more about how another fossil-fuel dependent, energy exporting, Western industrialized nation is approaching this issue.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- The intro sentence is certainly descriptive, but not very concise. It could be about half as long and still effectively communicate the subject.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes, the Lead does a good job of introducing the major talking points about Australian CCS without going into too much detail.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No, each bit of information in the Lead seems to have a section that expands upon everything mentioned.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- Given the complexity and technical detail of the subject, the Lead is about as concise as I would want it to be.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes, although some of the beginning content is a bit too detailed and not specific to Australia. This may be of use, however, to give the reader a decent background of the subject. However, I believe that CCS as a stand-along subject should contain technical information, while this article should only include information relevant to CCS's application to Australia.
Is the content up-to-date?
- Yes, the article includes many pieces of information and external links to events that take place in 2019, and even some timelines that include 2020-21.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- I do not know enough about this topic to say if anything is missing, and all information discussed herein is adequately expanded upon. As previously mentioned, the technical details behind CCS should be left for a more general topic.

Is the article neutral?
- Yes
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- There are a couple of sentences that convey a sense of optimism or pessimism towards certain future projects.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No, the considerations appear to be balanced.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No, there is no overall thesis to be found in this article.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Given the technicality of this subject, there are several science-related paragraphs that do not have any citations. Political and historical events do have the necessary citations.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, I believe so.
Are the sources current?
- Yes.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- The three that I tested all work.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- The article's overall structure is a bit hard to follow and does not present a clear order of events or order of ideas. Given the historical nature of this topic, I believe it would make more sense to order the article by chronology, not by topic.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- No.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- The sections do reflect the major points of the topic, but do not read together cohesively.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- No, there is only one image that provides an example of a current project, but does not enhance the topic. Diagrams of the CCS process, for instance, would be a great inclusion.
Are images well-captioned?
- Yes.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- I believe so, unless the aerial shot used in copyrighted.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- No, the image is too small.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- None since 2013.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- It is found in the C-rated section, but is a part of a WikiProject for Climate Change, Environment, and Australia.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- This article tends to focus on the politics behind Australian CCS and plays less importance to the economics.

What is the article's overall status?
- Previously mentioned, C-list.
What are the article's strengths?
- Comprehensive historical and current overview of events.
How can the article be improved?
- Better sources for scientific processes, or entire removal of the underlying science. Reorganization of article sections based on chronology.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- The article does seem well developed, given that the topic is restrained by up-to-date happenings.

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 — ~~~~