User:AreHc/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) Alchemy and chemistry in the medieval Islamic world

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I was interested in learning more about medieval alchemy, how It was practiced, and how it was received by the pubic at the time. Also because it is interesting to see how different or similar it is to what we know now. My preliminary impression that it was only "turning lead into gold", but its way more in-depth than that. It matters because its a window into where these sciences first started and how they lead up to what we know of them today.

Evaluate the article
(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.)

This article needs to capitalize the words, "chemistry", "medieval", and "world" in the article title. Some of the section titles also need some words capitalized.

This article explains a great deal about the theory and relationship with the western sciences but it doesn't go into that much detail about the actual practices of alchemy and chemistry and how they discovered these subjects. This content gap could be closed if the author(s) talked more about these processes. Questions that could be answered are, "Where and who was alchemy most practiced by?", "What was the most/least popular process of these sciences?", " What timeline could be laid out about these practices and theories from known beginning to end?".

In the section "Processes and equipment", the author(s) name some processes for chemical processes but none for alchemy. They also list some tools but this and the processes could use more explanation on how they were utilized in the Medieval Islamic world and how they discovered them.

Some references to Lindenberg are missing citations. Along with other quotations being uncited.

Highlights alchemists works and lists their books but does not state their importance for some of them. Could go into more detail about what significance their contributions had.

Uses quotes from Lawrence Principe and then just reexplains what he meant very closely to the quote. This happens in other parts of the article too.

The talk pages note some contradiction and usage of unreliable sources; some information might be outdated.

The formatting of the text could be better. A lot of the first section feels like a giant wall of text.

The section "Alchemical and chemical theory" could have a better visual for the "World of Forms" and explain more about it.

Many parts of the article use vague terminology.