User:Thitikarn Chinpattanakul/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.

Water resources management in Columbia: Water resources management in Colombia
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I have chosen this article to evaluate because I find it important to learn more about water resources management since nowadays people who have access to water can consume water unmindfully, which result in waste and inefficiency in the use of water. In addition, this article is a C rate article, which means it needed to be develop. Therefore, I believe this is a great article to evaluate on.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes for the most part.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. There are some statistic data such as water resources availability per capita in Colombia that are presented in the main content.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
Is the content up-to-date? Not really. There is a mention of the data in 2020 toward the end. However, the article focuses mainly on the information in 2007.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do not think so.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article uses mainly news from Columbia.

Is the article neutral? Yes. There is no persuasive argument appears in this article. All information are facts and statistic data.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I do not think so.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. Most of them come from the official report from Columbia,
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
Are the sources current? Not really. They are mostly ten years behind.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Concise
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I see
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The editor talks about what their editions. There is no active discussion with other editors.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C rate for Columbia and Water project. B rate for Sanitation project.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

What is the article's overall status? C rate maybe
What are the article's strengths? The article is very concise with facts. It explains it in a succinct way,
How can the article be improved? Right now there are all facts. The sentence structures are no very attractive. Editor can work on that more.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Pretty much well developed.

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 — ~~~~