User:Eriicaayu/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.

Name of article: Environmental science
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- I have background knowledge on the subject and it is one of my favorite subjects. The article seems well written and even includes pictures which a lot of links that I clicked before this did not include. It also is relevant to today's world issues.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes
  - Environmental science is an interdisciplinary academic field that integrates physical, biological and information sciences(including ecology, biology, physics, chemistry, plant science, zoology, mineralogy, oceanography, limnology, soil science, geology and physical geography (geodesy), and atmospheric science) to the study of the environment, and the solution of environmental problems.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes, but some of the topics are not mentioned again.
  - Contents section
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- Overly detailed

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes
Is the content up-to-date?
- Yes
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- The components section does not match with the lead. For example, it mentions environmental engineering in the lead but writes nothing about it in the components section. Overall, content could be better.

Is the article neutral?
- Yes
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Yes, there are points in environmental science that just are not written about at all.
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
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- No
Are the sources current?
- Yes, could be more up to date.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Few
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- People don't agree with how it is written. In previous edits, it was unfocused and not representative of the field.
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?
- I think the person or people who edited this had different directions on how to talk about this topic, but ultimately did not do it justice. This article doesn't remind me of the environmental science class I took.

What is the article's overall status?
- C class and no rating on importance scale
What are the article's strengths?
- Uses the references well. All references have made its way into one section or another.
How can the article be improved?
- Not sure if the edits have made it better, maybe consider a new format and different talking points altogether. Needs more references and a bigger variety.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- 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 — ~~~~