User:Maia.soderlund/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?

Dead zone (ecology)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

The reason why I choose this article is because dead zones are something that have always been of interest. The term "eutrophication" is what is associated with dead zones, which is where there is a lack of oxygen in the water due to access runoff and other excessive nutrients that cause a dis-balance in the overall health of the ecosystem. This is something that matters because of the loss of habitat which leads to the death of many species. It is easier for fish to remove themselves from this area, but plants and other smaller organisms suffer greatly. These dead zones can negatively impact the economy along with the health of humans. If one finds themselves in a dead zone, there is a risk of disease.

Evaluate the article

Everything in this article is relevant to the topic, nothing in particular distracted me from the overall idea. There doesn't seem to be anything that is out of date, but there could be dead zones that can be added to this page in terms of location. I cannot identify any notable equity gaps, but it would be helpful to bring up further historical research as not much is provided. There could be added sources to further back up what is said on this article. I was told that having at least two articles linked in a sentence would be ideal, and some sentences don't have any articles linked to them.

There is some comments that would classify as biased toward dead zones. It is just the wording of some of the sentences that are questionable. I don't believe anything is overrepresented, however, bringing in more information about the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 could possibly be beneficial. Like coming back to how this has impacted us now.

Something I see is that a lot of wikipedia work is referenced in this article. It does support the claims that are made, but are these ideas actually credible? A lot of the articles I am clicking on bring me to another wikipedia article, so maybe bringing in other research from other sources could be beneficial as we are unsure if the wikipedia articles are fully credible. There are diverse array of authors for these articles, but again, credibility wise, I am unsure if it is smart to include so many wikipedia articles, without including other sources.

There is quite a bit of edits and talk behind the scenes from others. It is rated C-class and is apart of several other WikiProjects such as limnology and oceanography, ecology, environment, and so on.