User:Torrin Smith/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: (Fault (geology))
• Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
  • Faults are major contributors to structural geology.

Lead

Guiding questions

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • No
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • Concise but maybe not enough information for how much is covered in the rest of the article.

Lead evaluation

Lead is short and doesn't feel like it covers enough material as compared to how much is covered-ish in the rest of the article.

Content

Guiding questions

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
  • Yes
• Is the content up-to-date?
  • Yes, more or less.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • No

Content evaluation

Everything is relevant. It seems like all of the necessary information is covered adequately.Pictures are distracting but necessary. Relatively current sources are in use and basic information for this subject doesn't change all that often. The specifics could be expanded upon more I guess, but I don't know if I qualify yet to add that kind of information.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions

• Is the article neutral?
  • Yes, the only controversy would be age dates.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • Not that I noticed.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Faults and ore deposits is underpresented.
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No

Tone and balance evaluation

There are no serious or noticeable biases. The section on faults and ore deposites seems very underpresented.

Sources and References

Guiding questions

• 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?
  • Yes/No - sources that work seem very specific, however they do reflect other available literature on the topic.
• Are the sources current?
  • Relatively, most are around ten years old.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Some work but it seems like most don't, or they cite other Wikipedia articles ore journals that can't be accessed by a layperson.

Sources and references evaluation

The references section is not good. Most sources are not accessible or don't currently work. Not all facts are cited and should be.

Organization

Guiding questions

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • The article is well written. This topic can be difficult to put into words, but it is concise, clear, and fairly easy to read.
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • There aren't any grammatical or spelling errors that I found.
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • The article is broken into distinct major points of the topic.

Organization evaluation

Organization is beneficial to the article. Its provides a clear understanding of the different types of faults and categories of information about faults.

Images and Media

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?
  • Yes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes

Images and media evaluation

Images are appealing, enhance the readers understanding of the article, are simply informative of real world examples of the topics being described.

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
  • There is some disagreement on what initiates an earthquake and what initiates a fault.
  • A lot of the discussion is about layout of the subcategories.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • This article is rated been rated as a C-Class in quality.
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
  • It's very similar to the way we have described it in class. The categories are maybe a bit more well organized.

Talk page evaluation

There is debate over fundamental issues. There are also discussions on how the article should be organized.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions

• What is the article's overall status?
  • The article looks professional.
• What are the article's strengths?
  • The articles strengths are obviously focused on the basic types of faults.
• How can the article be improved?
  • The section on ore should definitely be expanded upon more.
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
  • I would say this article is a little underdeveloped.

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: