User:104.245.151.33/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Incomplete Gamma Function
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I decided to evaluate this article because the Gamma Function is interesting, and I didn't know it would be useful to split it into two parts.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise

Lead evaluation
The lead seems to be well done. It doesn't describe the various sections in the article, but it gets the major point across in telling the reader what the Incomplete Gamma Functions are. If the reader wants to know more, they can simply look at the table of contents.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Not that I can tell

Content evaluation
This article is pretty well filled out with information, all of which is directly about the Incomplete Gamma Function.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
This article is extremely neutral, only presenting facts about the Incomplete Gamma Function.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are a couple paragraphs/claims that aren't cited, but most are.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * All of the sources are from mathematical journals, so they've been peer-reviewed and should be considered trustworthy.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The newest source is from 2010, which in terms of mathematics can be considered fairly current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links all seem to work.

Sources and references evaluation
This article has many sources, all of which come from reputable publications and back up the information presented in the article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article makes its points clear.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The article seems to be free of grammatical/spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is well-organized. It's broken down into sections and subsections that all lead into each other fairly well.

Organization evaluation
The article is organized well so that the reader can understand the information.

Images and Media
Guiding questions:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article doesn't include any images. According to the talk page, there used to be an animation, but it was removed because it didn't enhance understanding.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * NA

Images and media evaluation
There are no images in the article, so the article looks dull, but it's better than having an irrelevant image on the page.

Checking the talk page
Guiding questions:


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The talk page is mostly dead. The last message was in 2017, and it came from a bot. Otherwise, the bulk of work on the article occurred between 2006 and 2011.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is a part of WikiProject Mathematics. It's B Class and has Low importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia uses a lot of the same terms we use in class, such as the argument of the complex number z.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page seems to have been used well when the article was being actively updated. However, it has a grade of "B" which is good compared to the rest of the article in mathematics and it has a low importance, so the article isn't being actively updated.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is not currently being worked on.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article presents a lot of information about the Incomplete Gamma Function in a clear and precise manner.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * There aren't any graphics, and so a visualization might be helpful. However, an image should not be added if it does not substantially improve the article.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article seems to be mostly complete. It's well-developed with a lot of information.

Overall evaluation
This article seems to be well done, with a lot of information cited from a lot of reputable sources. It's not being worked on anymore, which is probably okay since it's a topic with low importance and seems to be well-covered already.

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 with four tildes ~


 * Link to feedback: