User:Hexactinellida24/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]This article covers a subject within oceanography, though it is less extensive and has a maintenance warning banner on it. I thought it would be good to evaluate to see where it is lacking compared to some other oceanography articles I saw that had no warning and more information.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The information in this article seems to be well researched but I think it could be presented better. The layout of the article heavily favours information on how paleoceanographic information is collected. While data and information collected by these research methods are sometimes mentioned, overall there seems to be very little information on paleoceanographic knowledge, research, or ideas.
Though there are a few recent sources, most of the sources in this article are fairly old. It might be useful to balance some of the older research with potentially newer studies or information.
One thing I would suggest to improve this article would be reformatting it to have 2 main sections: one that contains the data collection and research methods, as already listed in the article, and a new one that summarizes some important research and discoveries made using these methods. This section can also contain some newer sources including more modern and up-to-date research.
Some phrasing in this article could be re-written to sound more impartial - eg. the first sentence under the 'Sediment Records' subheading is phrased like an opinion and uses the pronoun 'us', making it sound partial and informal. Otherwise the tone of the article is neutral in that it doesn't present information in a way that intentionally tries to sway the opinion of the reader. Edit: I went back and changed some of the phrasing in the 'Sediment Records' paragraph, so the sentence I refer to above is not in the most recent version of the article.
The image on this page is presented with no context or comment on how it is relevant to the page. I think adding context to the image would be another great way to incorporate paleoceanographic knowledge into the article.
Overall I would say that this article is underdeveloped. While it does have some good information, it feels like it is missing a lot. For a topic as broad as paleoceanography I think there is potential for a lot more information to be presented beyond data collection methods.