User:Cz.seo/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?

(Provide a link to the article here.)

Deficit irrigation

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.)

I came to choose this article because in the past I have heard about deficit irrigation and the basic idea of it and well the article title just caught my attention. A reason why this article might matter is because it is a description/summary of a type of water management strategy that a crop owner or someone who is looking for base knowledge of this type of irrigation practice to save use of water. My preliminary impression of the article is that it's quite dull, I usually have seen most we'll presented wiki articles with images in correlation to the topic and noticed that his article has none.

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: In the lead section it provides a well introduction sentence that clearly describes deficit irrigation. From reading the article I would say that the lead does not include a brief description of the major sections but just gives descriptions from one of its sections. But I will say that it does not include additional information that wasn't mentioned throughout the article. The lead section is concise as is but does need about half to be changed since from information that is presented in the article it does not include a description of some of the major sections just focused on one part of the whole article.

Content: For the most part the article's content is relevant to the topic but would say the section "Crop water productivity" seems that the information provided doesn't flow or belong in the article. Will mention that the "Constraints" section of deficit irrigation for some points made doesn't really seem to be depicted as constraints or belong in that section. Compared to the "advantages" section it does a good job at addressing the advantages of deficit irrigation but with constraints it does not. I do have to mention that the information is up to date.

Tone and balance: Parts of the article do have a neutral tone but sections like "Experience with deficit irrigation" come off as more of a promotion toward the use of deficit irrigation. Leans more toward promoting the use of deficit irrigation than providing an unbiased tone referring to incorporating a promoting tone like style.

Sources and references: Citations are working and for the ones I checked it citation they do support the claims in the article. The facts mentioned are appropriate and reliable references. The sources range from 1990- 2009, so current sources could be updated in regards to including more recent sources if possible. From a bit of digging around I did find some better recent possible sources that are peer reviewed, including multiple collaborators such as "Strategies from Deficit Irrigation of Forage Crops" from the Utah State University site. The sources provided in the wiki article are written from a diverse spectrum of authors.

Organization and Writing Quality: The article is well written in regards to being understandable at what it is trying to get at. But I will say that the article is not well organized. The article does transitions from one section to another don't flow and at some there is a bit of repetition. As for grammatical errors there doesn't seem to be any present or that I can notice.

Images and Media: This is a flaw the article has in regards to having zero visual (images) on anything that is talked about. Which can cause the audience to find the article not appealing and hard to understand a point that is being made that could use an image for reference.

Talk Page Discussion: The type of conversation that is occurring behind the scenes that is first seen is a disagreement over DI being qualified as neologism. But all dating back to June of 2009 as the most recent conversations. This article is part of four WikiProjects this being Wiki Project- (1)Environment, (2)Climate change, (3)Agriculture and (4)Water. This article has been rated C-class for all WikiProjects.

Overall Impressions: The status of the article is it needs work/ updating. The article's strength would be its citations, references, organization in some of the sections and wording. The way this article can be improved is by adding images, incorporating more recent sources, eliminating and editing some sections information. As is, I would say that this article is underdeveloped due to the changes and edits that are needed to be considered well developed.