 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
Which article are you evaluating?
editWhy you have chosen this article to evaluate?
edit(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
Mazukus are unique and hazardous natural phenomenon which involves humongous passive diffusion/release of CO2 from volcanically active areas. So, understanding their occurrences, formation, effects, and associated risks is important not only for scientific accuracy but also for public safety and awareness. I am interested in evaluating this article because it aligns into my PhD research interests and I would like to add my contribution my editing this Wikipedia article since it lacks some of accurate and well-structured information that are supported by reliable sources.
Evaluate the article
edit(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
Lead Section
The lead section is straight forward as it clearly explains Mazuku as pockets of CO2 that can be lethal, with it's Swahili meaning. However, it could beneficial if it could go deep on the geological processes involved, as well as geographical location/coverage worldwide.
Content
The general article content is a little bit biased as it only mention general causes and human and environmental effects of Mazuku while mentioning examples like Lake Nyos and Mammoth Mountain. However, it could provide more insightful knowledge on the general idea of how it forms as well as prevention measures against Mazukus.
Tone and Balance
The tone of the article is neutral and based on facts only
Sources and References
Reliable references are very few in this article, that’s why it is only relying on very few world class examples. I would recommend more reliable scientific citations from reliable sources to strengthen the article's credibility.
Organization and Writing Quality
The article structure is in an organizable manner. However, some of these sections could be more improved with extra detailed explanations. Although the article shows an organizable structure but there only two sections, for more clarity and for the sake of improving this article I recommend addition of more detailed sections as Formation and Occurances, Geochemical Compositionn of mazuku, Geographical and Geological location, Hazards and Effects, Environmenta Impact and Risk Assessment
Images and Media
Unfortunately the article contains only one image, but it would make alot of sense and the concept of Mazuku could be understood better if the article could be populated with more illustrational cartoons,diagrams or maps.Also, the provided images caption could have been improved as well to make a meaningfull interpretation of the image
Talk Page Discussion
Very few people are discussing this topic so there very little information provided on the Talk Page. So if I will edit this article perhaps it would attract more people and therefore we will get more thoughts and suggestions from other editors.Because the article is new, there are very few discussion going in the talk page. But I encourage in the future, all the editors/ wikipedians to build constructive ideas on the subject matter without any biasness so as to improve the quality of the article. Ensure balance coverage as well as insisting the use of appropriate source references
Overall Impression
The writter segregated people who are not scientists,may be if he could add more images with enriched and proper captions, referencing from far more detailed source and at least be neutral in all sections it would make the artcilce more user friendly. Additionally, the article lacks depth in case studies and world-class examples of mazukus and their immediate effects as well as a global coverage context. Therefore more detailed scientific data and sources are needed to improve it's academic quality.