User:Arixena24/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.


 * Heat Death of the Universe: (link)
 * I am a physics major. Also, this is interesting, and it is the theory of the death of the Universe that I subscribe to.

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?
 * It is concise, being only three paragraphs.

Lead evaluation
The lead gives a lot of information, explaining the theory and its origin. I think the first paragraph should be expanded to two, but that is just for better understanding.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content seems to be up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There could be some improvements but overall it does not look like there is anything missing. There are some odd block quotations in one of the sections.
 * 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
Overall, the content is good, but there could be improvements with wording and minor things to help the reader understand a little easier.

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?
 * The opposing views section is not well fleshed-out, and the time frame section also seems lacking
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The overall tone is neutral

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Some sources seem to be non peer-reviewed
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, however they are all privileged physicists as expected
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The sources work, however there is some discrepancy because the article seems to be composed of a lot of arXiv articles, which are not necessarily peer reviewed. There is also a discrepancy with one of the facts, and also a section has a lot of block quotes which are difficult to understand.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Some paragraphs are too long, and some concepts are not well-explained
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None seen
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, but there could be more

Organization evaluation
It could be organized a little better and in a way in which it is easier for the reader to understand.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, it includes one image of Kelvin and the title image is the cosmic microwave background
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * 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
There is little to no media. Media could be added.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is barely any conversation. One editor strayed from topic, and there was someone who brought up a factual error.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Level 5 vital article in Science, Astronomy. It is also rated C-Class.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The talk page is a little less formal than I thought it would be.

Talk page evaluation
Could use improvement and more collaborations between wikipedians.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * C-Class
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It gives a good introduction to the concept, but further reading is required if one wants more information
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article could be improved if wikipedians who are well-acquainted with Physics and Astronomy make improvements
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say it is competent to some extent, but is underdeveloped.

Overall evaluation
Overall, I think it is a good article, it just needs to be improved by people who are well versed in Physics and Astronomy, and people who have more knowledge about this subject.

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: