User:Aflemingclt/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Closed Timelike Curve
 * Closed timelike curves (or CTCs) are a fascinating phenomenon in theoretical physics. While their feasibility has never been confirmed, they open up the possibility of incredible applications such as time travel and infinite energy, while also challenging the fundamental laws of physics and causality.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * It does not. While the introductory sentence is accurate, it is too technical for the average reader to understand.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It does not. There is no mention of light cones.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes. It summarizes the history of CTCs, and mentions the Novikov self-consistency principle without elaborating.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * While the lead is reasonably short, it summarizes the history and consequences of CTC when these could be better explained in dedicated sections.

Lead evaluation
The lead fails to provide a sufficiently simple explanation of CTCs for average readers, instead expecting a preexisting background in modern physics. In addition, it also provides detailed information that is better suited for later sections of the article (or even deserving of their own sections).

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. The Light Cone section is necessary for understanding the premise of CTCs, the General Relativity section provides a convenient list of theoretical CTCs, and the Consequences section is necessary for understanding why CTCs are of interest to theoretical physicists.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Mostly, although it is missing a CTC solution in the General Relativity section: the traversable acausal retrograde domain in spacetime (or TARDIS), proposed by Benjamin K Tippett and David Tsang.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * In the Light Cone section, it is not explained what ct or how it is used as units of space. Also, the distinction between timelike and spacelike is inaccurate (timelike means something is inside the event's lightcone, spacelike means it is outside of the event's lightcone, and lightlike means it is on the event's lightcone), and the use of the term freefall, while technically accurate, is confusing (freefall in this context means not accelerating).
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No.

Content evaluation
The content of this article is mostly relevant and accurate. The main issues are with organization and presentation.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * For the most part, yes. While there is debate among experts over whether CTCs are physically possible, the article does not take a side and represents both scientific possibilities equally.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Mostly no; however, the article dismisses the possibility of generic, non-artificial CTCs, stating that "most physicists feel that CTCs in such solutions are artifacts." It even describes the possibility of generic CTCs as "unnerving," which is not neutral language.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * In the introduction, the Novikov self-consistency principle is presented as the only solution to time travel paradoxes, when in fact other theoretical solutions exist.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Tone and balance evaluation
Despite the two incidents described above, the article overall is neutral and focuses exclusively on objective facts about CTCs, without delving into opinion or speculation.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No. There are no citations at all in the Light Cone, General Relativity, or Cauchy Horizon sections, and limited citations in the Consequences section.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * They are fairly thorough, including a number of research papers and a textbook on general relativity geometries. However, there is also a memoir by Steven Hawking and a fictional novel called The Accidental Time Machine for some reason (these should not be sources).
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes. Most of them are less than twenty years old.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No. Most of the authors appear to be men.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
While most of the sources are good, there are a few that should not be included. This article would also benefit from additional sources because the current ones are incredibly specific; extra sources are especially needed in the Light Cone and General Relativity sections.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * No. While the Light Cone section is accessible to the average reader, the rest of the article uses dense, confusing, and technical language.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No. The background of the topic is explored exclusively in the intro, and the distinction between contractible versus non-contractible CTCs does not require its own section.

Organization evaluation
The organization of this article is probably it's weakest point. It needs a dedicated History of CTCs section, and should probably consolidate the smaller sections.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes. The light cone section has a diagram of two light cones that helps illustrate how CTCs work; however, additional diagrams would be useful.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes. The caption explains the difference between the regular and sideways Light Cones in a concise way.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

Images and media evaluation
The picture that is used is very helpful, but this article would benefit from more diagrams.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Most commenters are either pointing out factual errors or agreeing that the article should be better explained in layman's terms.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated B-class in quality and mid-importance on the importance scale. It is part of the Physics WikiProject and supported by the relativity task force.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedians are more focused on how to present the topic to the public, rather than deriving and exploring the technical details of the topic.

Talk page evaluation
While most evaluators agree that the article needs better layman's language and more citations, few seem to have the technical expertise to fix this without introducing false information.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Poor.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is largely accurate and almost completely neutral.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It needs more citations, and needs to be written for a more general audience.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Underdeveloped.

Overall evaluation
The biggest needs of this article are adding more citations and improving the language for a more general audience.

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: