User:Rdroubay/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?

Anthropogenic biome

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article to evaluate because we were talking about the Anthropocene earlier today. It is also related to the Sterling et al. reading regarding the inclusion of humans when considering their ecological and geographic affects.

Evaluate the article

While the article begins with a decent lead that outlines the general definition for the article's topic, I have doubts about the reliability about the articles content. To begin, there are many claims that lack citations. For example, under the heading "Anthropogenic transformation of the Biosphere", the author asserts that "600,00 years ago, humans were using spears to kill horses and other large animals in Great Britain and China." There is no citation after the assertion. Because of the lack of a reliable source, it is impossible to know the validity of such statements upon reading. Whether the information is accurate or up-to-date is questionable throughout the article. Additionally, there are several instances of the author redundantly citing sources within a paragraph.

As for the sources, all of the sources are from the 21st century. The majority of the sources are also from the last decade. This is valuable due to the nature of the articles subject matter. Anthropology and biology are two ever evolving science. Often times accepted theories can become out of date or rejected. Much like the Anthropocene epoch we spoke of in class today. The sources also seem to be related to the article topic, and the direct citations. Not all of the sources have a hyperlink to the source, however that has to do more with the nature of the source rather than a mistake on the authors part. The main issue with sourcing is that some of the claims require a source, or redundancy of already cited sources.

As for the flow of the information, I may have formatted it differently. However, as it is now is acceptable, and conveys the information in an organized way. The article needs more distinction between heading and sub-headings. It would also benefit from more headings, as the author put a majority of the information under the heading "Anthropogenic transformation of the Biosphere". That section would certainly benefit from being organized further into distinct headings. The writing throughout the article is neutral and informative. The article is easy to read, and the information is easily digestible. However, there are some key vocabulary terms in the beginning of the article that are defined towards the end. For example, the classifications of major anthromes are at the very end of the article. However, the author uses the major anthromes throughout the article prior to defining then.

The media and images within the article are relevant and cited, however they are quite small. Especially since the three images are maps and one satellite image, it would be easier to read/see if they were blown up. Other than that, they are good visual aids. I think the article would've benefitted from more photos or figures because the topic is somewhat visual. My favorite image on the article was the second image, showing the anthromes.

As for the Talk page, there are very few comments and conversations. I think two to be exact. One of the comments was from an author addressing the multiple references. They asked if it was possible to combine the references rather than having the redundancy issue I mentioned above.

My overall impression is that this article (as it is) is unreliable. Meaning, I don't have a great amount of trust in some of the information as it lacks citation or sourcing. I also think the readability or formatting could be improved in order to better communicate the subject matter.