Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
I have chosen this article because I love reading about meteorites and suspect that the article for this one could use some critiquing.
Lead
Guiding questions
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Generally, yes.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
It does not mention anything about the composition or type of meteorite, which I think would be useful in a couple words.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
The recovery situation is not described anywhere else in the article
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
It is definitely concise. possibly too much so.
Lead evaluation
Content
Guiding questions
Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
There is nothing that is irrelevant.
Is the content up-to-date?
The suggestion that a meteorite is from Phobos, especially a CR, is questionable nowadays, but there is a scientific article linked as a source.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
The 'compositoon' section could be beefed up, and a section specifically on the recovery could be useful.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
No? Why does it have to?
Content evaluation
Tone and Balance
Guiding questions
Is the article neutral?
I would say all that is there is neutral. Even the 'Origin' section repeatedly says that the theory is suggested.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
The Martian moon origin, being the only one suggested, is actually probably biased in that direction.
Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?
See above.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
While one view is over represented, it is not written in a persuasive way.
Tone and balance evaluation
Sources and References
Guiding questions
Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
The entire 'composition' section is not cited. Also, source 4 and 5 are basically the same; a scientific article and a conference abstract about that article.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
The sources which they included are in themselves thorough. Plenty of scientific articles and conference abstracts.
Are the sources current?
Yes. Most are early 00s, but there is one 2017 paper. This is how meteorite work usually goes; most of the work is done within a year of the fall or find.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Could probably use more authors; half of them are from the same person. That may be a result of few people studying the meteorite, though.
Check a few links. Do they work?
Yes.
Sources and references evaluation
Organization
Guiding questions
Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
The sections that exist are well written and easy to follow.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
None that I can see.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
Yes.
Organization evaluation
Images and Media
Guiding questions
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
There is not an image, but I would be surprised if an image of this meteorite or a Russian military base existed under the image guidelines. Checked the commons. Doesn't exist.
Are images well-captioned?
N/A
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
N/A
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
N/A
Images and media evaluation
Checking the talk page
Guiding questions
What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
There is only a post from a link-editing bot.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
It is a stub of mid-importance. Part of wikiproject Solar System and Geology
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
There isn't much discussion.
Talk page evaluation
Overall impressions
Guiding questions
What is the article's overall status?
It is a stub that could use some more work.
What are the article's strengths?
It is concise and to the point. Sidebar is easy to read and has relevant information.
How can the article be improved?
Needs more discussion of the find, composition (including sources), and more discussion on alternate parent body theories.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
Poorly developed at this point. I may make it one of my articles for this course.
Overall evaluation
Optional activity
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
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
I have chosen this article because I love reading about meteorites and suspect that the article for this one could use some critiquing.
Lead
Guiding questions
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Generally, yes.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
It does not mention anything about the composition or type of meteorite, which I think would be useful in a couple words.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
The recovery situation is not described anywhere else in the article
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
It is definitely concise. possibly too much so.
Lead evaluation
Content
Guiding questions
Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
There is nothing that is irrelevant.
Is the content up-to-date?
The suggestion that a meteorite is from Phobos, especially a CR, is questionable nowadays, but there is a scientific article linked as a source.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
The 'compositoon' section could be beefed up, and a section specifically on the recovery could be useful.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
No? Why does it have to?
Content evaluation
Tone and Balance
Guiding questions
Is the article neutral?
I would say all that is there is neutral. Even the 'Origin' section repeatedly says that the theory is suggested.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
The Martian moon origin, being the only one suggested, is actually probably biased in that direction.
Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?
See above.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
While one view is over represented, it is not written in a persuasive way.
Tone and balance evaluation
Sources and References
Guiding questions
Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
The entire 'composition' section is not cited. Also, source 4 and 5 are basically the same; a scientific article and a conference abstract about that article.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
The sources which they included are in themselves thorough. Plenty of scientific articles and conference abstracts.
Are the sources current?
Yes. Most are early 00s, but there is one 2017 paper. This is how meteorite work usually goes; most of the work is done within a year of the fall or find.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Could probably use more authors; half of them are from the same person. That may be a result of few people studying the meteorite, though.
Check a few links. Do they work?
Yes.
Sources and references evaluation
Organization
Guiding questions
Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
The sections that exist are well written and easy to follow.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
None that I can see.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
Yes.
Organization evaluation
Images and Media
Guiding questions
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
There is not an image, but I would be surprised if an image of this meteorite or a Russian military base existed under the image guidelines. Checked the commons. Doesn't exist.
Are images well-captioned?
N/A
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
N/A
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
N/A
Images and media evaluation
Checking the talk page
Guiding questions
What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
There is only a post from a link-editing bot.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
It is a stub of mid-importance. Part of wikiproject Solar System and Geology
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
There isn't much discussion.
Talk page evaluation
Overall impressions
Guiding questions
What is the article's overall status?
It is a stub that could use some more work.
What are the article's strengths?
It is concise and to the point. Sidebar is easy to read and has relevant information.
How can the article be improved?
Needs more discussion of the find, composition (including sources), and more discussion on alternate parent body theories.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
Poorly developed at this point. I may make it one of my articles for this course.
Overall evaluation
Optional activity
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