User:Envijustice25/Evaluate an Article

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Solarpunk Article

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solarpunk&oldid=1201169977)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because I really enjoyed the books we read in Environmental Ethics. I think the concept is important since it provides a hopeful but also realistic idea of a better future. I think also since we are focusing on art later on, this would be a good article to read to find some artists.

== {{Lead section

The lead section does a good job of defining solarpunk. The first sentence and paragraph clearly define the term and its purpose. The second paragraph explains how it is used to address environmental challenges clear and simple. The third paragraph gives more detail into solarpunk, but it could be taken out completely since there are sections that should have these details as well. It fits right into the background and theme sections. The first two paragraphs are concise and work well in the lead section.|Content=Content, Tone/Balance

All sections included in the article seem to fit well. There is nothing left out and clear, detailed information in present throughout. The article does a good job of explaining the section and then providing evidence of artists who have incorporated solarpunk in their work. The article seems to be neutral as it is defining solarpunk as it is and does not appear to be reflecting negatively on it, nor is the article putting the idea of solarpunk on a pedestal. It is providing a description of themes and movements and artists who have incorporated the idea in their work, as means to further describe the idea of solarpunk and how it is used. I think there could be more information within the architecture section since it is more about real integration into society and not just within artistic expression. There is mention of the idea of solarpunk being greenwashed that is fairly short. Perhaps there could be more information about this with more examples. There don't seem to be many minority points to be described on this topic. However, there is no discussion of negative viewpoints on solarpunk or people who oppose the idea or see flaws in the concept. So by not mentioning this, the article could be thought to persuade the reader into accepting the concept.|Source and References=Sources and References

There are numerous citations in every section that back up ideas from the writer. There are also numerous references of artists that provide evidence to the definitions and concepts of solarpunk. There are over 35 sources and the oldest source dates back to 2015. There is a diverse spectrum of authors and links work. There are numerous sources of articles, journals, and news websites that have been used sufficiently.|Organization and writing quality=Organization and writing quality

The article is well-written, clear and concise. It is broken down into clear sections, however the order is a bit unorganized. Ending with architecture is a bit awkward, perhaps move it up before greenwashing. The other sections are well organized as stated before. There aren't any grammatical or spelling errors that I caught.|Images and Media=Images and Media

There are only two images, the second image does a good job at depicting the idea of a solarpunk future. The first one is the proposed flag of the solarpunk movement. I think it fits well with the art movement section, however there seem to be many different variations of the flag elsewhere. There could maybe be another image of some other variation of solarpunk, one that show recent implications of the concept into society maybe. Both captions are clear and adhere to the regulations. They are placed at the beginning of the section they are included in and are large enough to be seen in an appealing way.|Talk page discussion=Talk page discussion

There are some that discuss how there is more to solarpunk than just a literary and artistic movement. There is another asking for evidence for notability of the flag image. And another about an article being deleted. The first and second one relate to the topic of the article, and the third is about the fact that the article was nominated for deletion in 2017 and it was. The article is rated B-class and low importance and of interest to several wikiprojects. There is not much discussion about the topic. There is mention of including more aspects of life in regards to solarpunk that go beyond art which is something we talked about and continue to talk about. Other than that there wasn't much.|Overall impression=I liked the article, I thought it was well put and contained valuable sources of artists.

What is the article's overall status: B-class and low-importance What are the article's strengths: references to artists, being able to clearly define solarpunk, how it came to be and what it stands for. How can the article be improved: Include more on the environmental issues being addressed and more implications of solarpunk other than art. How would you assess the article's completeness: I think it is well developed for what it is trying to focus on. But I do agree with one of the conversations of the talk page. It is more than just the art movement and there are other aspects of solarpunk and society that should be included and further discussed.}}Evaluate the article ==


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Envijustice25/Evaluate_an_Article&oldid=1202984667"