User:Brontesmithclass/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Is the content up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

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

Images and Media

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

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
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?

Overall impressions

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

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

Climate change and fisheries

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Fishing impacts the world greatly and seeing the link between climate change and fisheries is something I would like to contribute to. I believe having a good jumping off point for this topic, as that is how many people use wikipedia, will be nice to contribute to. My initial reaction to the wikipedia page was that it seems to focus on rural and smaller fishing communities that will be disproportionately affected. It definitely has room for improvement.

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section

The lead introduces the nuances of the topic first which seems odd, opposed to defining the idea of climate change influencing fisheries and vice versa.

The lead includes a brief description of some of the major sections, but not all of them.

It does not cover information not present in the article.

The lead is concise.

Content

One section on overfishing does not seem relevant to the topic, it seems like it does not belong the way it is written.

The content does not have resources past 2013 with the exception of one from 2015. Most of the cited materials are from 2009 and earlier.

I would say the topic does not address larger fisheries impacts, it focuses on how climate change will affect smaller, more historically underrepresented populations. This is good representation, but it seems relevant to discuss larger fisheries impacts as well.

Tone and Balance

The article is neutral with the exception of the overfishing section, there is a bias on limiting overfishing opposed to speaking on its direct impacts to climate change at all.

Sources and References

The sources could be updated in some cases or backed with more recent information.

Not all of the links lead to the content it is supposed to lead to, but the PDFs work

Organization and writing quality

Most of the article is written well, with the exception of the overfishing section. It is well organized

Images and Media

Most of the images are hyper specific and do not enhance the understanding of the topic.

Talk page

The talk page has not had proposed edits since 2012. Some sources have been updated, largely in 2017. The page was looked at by other classes in January 2022.

There is not a large variety of input, mostly by an editor in 2012- the overfishing section person.

Overall impressions

This is a C-class article

The strengths are in talking about marginalized communities, covering a variety of relevant topics in a reasonable amount of depth with lots of highlighted words to read further on or define as needed.

The article can be improved by editing the overfishing section, lead, and updating sources. The article is underdeveloped and needs more up to date information.