User:Mackenzie Place/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 studies)
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- Well, I wanted to choose something relevant to the course and environmental studies was the closest.

Lead

Guiding questions:

1: The introductory sentence is short and concise - you know that there is a connection that will be drawn from human interaction and the environment

2: From what I take away, no

3: The Lead includes a great deal of information not talked about in the rest of the article but does link the words to other articles which is helpful

4: I think it is very short and concise - it's worded fairly well and easy to read, there are links to words that relate to the topic

(1) Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
(2) Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
(3) Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
(4) Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

Content

Guiding questions:

1: The content is relevant to the topic - it gives a VERY brief history of the subject (only in terms history), it also talks about the other fields of study related to environmental sciences. I will say that the list of what subjects are also associated with it is a bit long winded - they could probably shorten the list to make it a bit more concise. For ex. they talk about sociology and philosophy as some subjects associated with it - they could instead maybe say "human sciences" and link it.

2: It was last edited 20 February 2020 so in that sense, yes it is up-to-date

3: In terms of content missing - there is very little history on the subject that they talk about and how they talk about it is very choppy, i.e. like a bulleted list which isn't the best for reading the history of it. The history is interesting but I am sure there were individuals involved in environmental studies that they could have mentioned - who founded it, those who studied it and further developed it and not just the colleges that created degrees for it.

In terms of content that does not belong: I would say it is all very relevant to the subject so nothing should be removed but instead added to.

(1) Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
(2) Is the content up-to-date?
(3) Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

1: The article is very neutral - simply provides background information and facts as is

2: No

3: I don't believe so

4: No

(1) Is the article neutral?
(2) Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
(3)Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
(4) Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

1: They are backed up but most of it is from colleges (classes on environmental studies) - so, I would say not the most reliable sources of information

2: Not really - as I said, the sources are mainly from colleges talking about the topic and not a full fledge overview of what the topic truly is

3: Yes

4: Yes

(1) Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
(2) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
(3) Are the sources current?
(4) Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

Organization

Guiding questions:

1: The article is well written in the beginning - the overall view of the topic. It is very concise and very easy to read, some thought went into writing it. The historical part of the paper is informative but written a little choppy - just listing facts rather than explaining them or expanding on them.

2: Not any that I noticed

3: The major points are not really talked about - if they mentioned maybe what specific things environmental studies focus on or issues that they look at, how other fields of study are related (brief overview as there are a great deal of other related subjects), then maybe the history of it (how it began, who studies it, colleges that introduced the subject, etc.) it would flow better than just having the history of it alone.

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

Organization evaluation

Images and Media

Guiding questions:

1: I mean yes... it shows the world so you understand that it obviously has to do with earth in a broader sense

2: Fairly so, I would probably change the wording in some of it to flow better but that just might be a personal preference

3: No - it is actually copied from another page with the caption word for word

4: Yes

(1) Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
(2) Are images well-captioned?
(3) Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
(4) Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions:

1: It has some back and forth chats on how to understand the topic better and how to address confusion with the topic since it is related to environmental studies

2: It is part of three WikiProjects: Environment, Education, Higher Education All are rated Stub-class - which just means it is a very brief discussion of the topic with potentially high content issues. Under "Environment" it also has a High-importance rating meaning it covers the necessary information for understanding the environment

3: We've talked about it in much greater detail in terms of understanding how the environment works through plants. They talk about it as more of a definition in that it is very brief and very simplified.

(1) What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
(2) How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
(3) How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

1: Incomplete

2: The introduction of the topic is not bad - again, very concise

3: More information of the topic - don't just talk about one part of the history, need to include all of it

4: Underdeveloped - needs a lot of work and much more information of the topic

(1) What is the article's overall status?
(2) What are the article's strengths?
(3) How can the article be improved?
(4) How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation

Optional activity

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: (I'm too chicken to do it)