User:Hookecho/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

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.)

Anticyclones (high pressure or high geopotential height centers) are one of the main atmospheric features which impact weather and are just as important as their counterpart, cyclones. This article gives a good high level conceptual description of high pressure centers, but lacks sufficient scientific journal sources. A majority of the sources come from the National Weather Service or university lecture material, and a handful come from newspaper articles.

Evaluate the article

Content

The Lead Section gives a good basic description about what an anticyclone is and some of the associated weather impacts. However, the content is supported by a lot of newspaper articles and university class lectures. There are numerous published books and academic articles which would serve as better sources. Given the free time, I would add more complete descriptions to the structure, effects, and history sections since they are very minimal, and I have some knowledge about this topic.

Tone

The tone is very neutral and uses minimal jargon. In meteorology, there is a large vocabulary of technical terms and they can be confusing, so it is important to link jargon to other wikipedia pages or provide definition sources.

Sources

There should be more academic journal sources, but I realize paywalls could be posing a problem currently. Students with access to university library resources should take the time to add in sources since they likely will have access through their educational institution.

Talk Page

The talk page isn't very active, the last human post was from 2014. There was a discussion about completing a merge with high pressure area, but there was not enough consensus to complete the merger. The main reason given was that the high pressure area page was ranked higher and the would be problems merging sources. In my opinion, the pages should be merged regardless since the topics are essentially about the same thing, the only difference being an anticyclone includes a closed circulation. Due to limitations in observation, it's almost impossible to definitively say whether or not a circulation in the atmosphere is closed, so the point could be argued either way and therefore the high pressure page and anticyclone pages should be merged.

Guide to Article Evaluation

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