User:Yaatch/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?

Volcanism on the Moon

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

Planetary Geology is my main area of research. Because of this I feel comfortable in evaluating content related to this topic.

Evaluate the article

In general, the article contains several sections that summarize the topic relatively well. The lead section provides a concise and informative overview on lunar volcanism. The main volcanic landforms are introduced and the authors briefly comment on the volcanic history of the Moon. However, the lead section does not contain any citations regarding the information in it. Furthermore, although the geologic history of the Moon's volcanism is discussed in the lead section, the hypotheses to explain it are not discussed in other sections.

As for the content, most of the sections are succinct descriptions of the relevant topics. However, the section "Early Impressions" overly focuses on Western thinkers and scientists, without including mentions to researchers from outside of this center. On the one hand, the article contains several images that help understand the objects and concepts discussed. On the other hand, some diagrams can be added to illustrate some of the volcanic landforms described (lava domes, cones, rilles), as the text excessively relies on text to explain visual features. As mentioned before, a separate section for describing the overall interpretations for the history of volcanism on the Moon is lacking. The content seems slightly dated in the sense that it does not include the most recent results from the Chang'e-5 mission and some publications related to it (e.g., ^[1]).

The tone and balance of the article seem adequate for Wikipedia's standards. There is no visible persuasive bias, but to make it more balanced one could include more diverse perspectives from different civilizations and thinkers on the section "Early Impressions", as mentioned before.

The sources included are mostly from scientific journals, but significant portions of some sections are lacking citations (e.g., the Lead Section). Also, some of the sources are not primary, i.e. the authors rely on certain newspaper's texts to summarize scientific research (e.g., ^[2]). Going to primary sources would be more reliable and make the Wikipedia article more robust. Most links are working, but some are broken (ex. ""Gruitheisen Domes". Volcano World. Oregon State University").

Furthermore, the talk page of the article is not active, but the editing history shows consistent and active participation of a few editors during the past few years.

Overall, the article "Volcanism on the Moon" has a good structure and covers relevant topics related to volcanism on the Moon. However, there is room for improvement, especially regarding the citations for the lead section, the inclusion of up-to-date content in the text, the use of primary sources instead of newspaper articles and the expansion of the "Early Impressions" section. Furthermore, diagrams summarizing the volcanic landforms should be added, as well as a section regarding the hypotheses explaining the Moon's volcanic history.

^ academic.oup.com. doi:10.1093/nsr/nwab188. PMC 8974359. PMID 35382442 https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/doi/10.1093/nsr/nwab188/6397035. Retrieved 2023-01-31. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
^ Twitter (2014-10-14). "Did volcanoes erupt on the moon while dinosaurs roamed Earth?". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2023-01-31. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

[1] academic.oup.com. doi:10.1093/nsr/nwab188. PMC 8974359. PMID 35382442 https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/doi/10.1093/nsr/nwab188/6397035. Retrieved 2023-01-31. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: PMC format (link)

[2] Twitter (2014-10-14). "Did volcanoes erupt on the moon while dinosaurs roamed Earth?". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2023-01-31. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

[1]

[2]