User:Sally Shoemaker/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: Hydrology
- I chose this article because the topic is of interest to me.
Lead
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- It does.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- The lead contains some good overview information, but there are many other sections in the Contents list other than those mentioned in the Lead.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- It does not appear to.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- It is probably too concise.
Lead evaluation
[edit]The lead is okay, but implies that the focus of the article will be limited in ways that it clearly is not.
Content
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes
- Is the content up-to-date?
- It appears to be.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Not sure.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- No
Content evaluation
[edit]I don't know that I am in the position to say whether or not the content is appropriately thorough, but what is there is a mix between well-cited, objective material and totally lacking citation with no independent verification.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
- I'm not sure this applies, but I don't think so.
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No.
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]There are no issues noted with tone and balance.
Sources and References
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- No. There are a number of paragraphs that may connect to other pages, but do not contain any specific references at all.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- I'm not sure.
- Are the sources current?
- They appear to be.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Yes
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes; however, not all sources are cited properly and not all citations provide a link to the original source.
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]There are not enough sources, even with 45 specific citations.
Organization
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Quality of the writing is mixed.
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- It does not appear to; that is, I did not find any glaring issues at first read.
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- For a subject as vast as this one, it appears that many major points have been addressed; however, this article is all over the place.
Organization evaluation
[edit]This article is not well-organized.
Images and Media
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Yes
- Are images well-captioned?
- Yes
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- They appear to. There are several attributed to "own work," but I have no way of identifying if the work is, indeed, their own
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Yes.
Images and media evaluation
[edit]I'm not really sure how to evaluate this section, as several of the images are "own work." I would imagine there are many more images from published works available that could enhance this page not attributed to individual creators.
Checking the talk page
[edit]- Guiding questions
- What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- Conversations about the breadth of the page, overuse of external links and need for citations.
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- It is C-rated.
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- We didn't cover this topic specifically in class, though we did talk about the water cycle and the role trees play within it.
Talk page evaluation
[edit]This page has been in existence for nearly 20 years, yet there are less than two dozen entries on the Talk page, and only one I saw where there was an actual thread of conversation.
Overall impressions
[edit]- Guiding questions
- What is the article's overall status?
- It's pretty mediocre. I've definitely seen better. I believe the C-rating is appropriate.
- What are the article's strengths?
- The biggest strength is probably also one of its weaknesses--it contains a tremendous amount of linking to other wikipedia pages and external sources of information.
- How can the article be improved?
- It needs to be more focused and probably needs to attempt to cover less ground.
- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- Parts of the article have been developed well and others have not been.
Overall evaluation
[edit]Overall, this article lacks focus and while it provides links to many other helpful resources, it is greatly lacking in specific citations, it attempts to cover too much ground, and is muddy in its overall theme and presentation.
Optional activity
[edit]- 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: