User:Markees Whitfield/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: (Retreat of glaciers since 1850)
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I am very curious about glaciers concerning how much is really known about them. It is my hope that by evaluating this article I can learn more about them.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? A= It accurately does.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? A= Yes. It includes what is already contributed and what can also be found.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? A= No it does not
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? A= It is very simple and precise

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? A= Yes
Is the content up-to-date? A=The last clean up in discussion earlier this month.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? A= No
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? A= This article definitely address an underrepresented topic.

Is the article neutral? Yes. It shows no sign of personal opinion
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? A= No claims are clearly stated.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? A= There is a balanced amount of representation.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? A= No. There are only factual concepts, and methodical explanations.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. Most are from various geographical surveys.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current? A= No however the sources are still valid for the article.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? A= They are from research centers to single publishers.
Check a few links. Do they work? A= They do. They all included proper credentials and copyrights.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? A= Mostly concise. As a reader I assume responsibility to research anything that I had a hard time understanding in the article such as unfamiliar terms, etc.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? A=There did not seem to have any grammar errors. Only one minor spelling error was found.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? A= Very much so.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? A= Yes
Are images well-captioned? A= The captions are concise.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? A= Very much so
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? A= As visually appealing as glaciers can be.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? A= There is a lot of talk of certain glaciers having their own article and links being modified.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? A= It is part of the Glaciers & Geology Wikiprojects.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? A= This talk page is less like a forum and al most has articles to convey a suggestion/proposal.

What is the article's overall status? A= This article is informational with a lot of data yet to be added as the years go by.
What are the article's strengths? A= A lot of groups and people are watching glaciers and record the progress/decline of them.
How can the article be improved? A= It is already being discussed but I believe some of the information in the atrticle could have its own page.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? A= For the current time, this article is well developed. Retreat will continue and this page will continue to update.