User:Katzenjamming/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article
[edit]This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: Emergency sanitation
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. This article is fairly short and lacks sources; under the "Settings" section, there are no cited sources.
Lead
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes: it mentions refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs).
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, but could use more information.
Lead evaluation
[edit]It introduces the topic, but has information not explained in the article. It is likely too short.
Content
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
- Is the content up-to-date? Yes, but there could be more details.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
Content evaluation
[edit]It is underdeveloped.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral? Yes.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The article maintains an overall neutral, unbiased tone.
Sources and References
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No.
- Are the sources current? Yes.
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]The article is significantly lacking in sources, though the ones it does include are relevant.
Organization
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.
Organization evaluation
[edit]While the article is short, it is well-organized.
Images and Media
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
- Are images well-captioned? Yes.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.
Images and media evaluation
[edit]The images are selected, captioned, and laid out appropriately.
Checking the talk page
[edit]- Guiding questions
- What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is only one comment, which suggests several ideas to add to the article.
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is a C-Class article of High Importance and is part of WikiProject Sanitation.
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This article focuses on methods of providing sanitation in emergency situations. It is much more specific than the broader SDG6 articles we have covered in class, as it explains a particular situation in which sanitary conditions are maintained.
Talk page evaluation
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]- Guiding questions
- What is the article's overall status? It is written well, but is too short.
- What are the article's strengths? It clearly defines what emergency sanitation is, has relevant information as a starting point, and is well-organized.
- How can the article be improved? All sections can be expanded upon. The "Settings" section has no cited sources, so we'll have to find sources that support the information there or rewrite it entirely.
- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Underdeveloped.
Overall evaluation
[edit]This article has the potential to grow and become a fully detailed overview of emergency sanitation. The information there is relevant and the presentation is good. However, it is short, and more sources needed to be added to support some of the information.
Optional activity
[edit]- Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback
with four tildes — ~~~~
- Link to feedback: