User:Astronomy Rules/sandbox

Article Evaluation

Evaluating Content:

Everything in the article is relevant to the article topic. Something that distracted me was the unsourced material. The reference notes are out of date. Multiple citations are missing for some of the subtopics. Some of the subtopics could be improved. Most of the scientific information is clear and accurate. In a few areas, the accuracy of a few statements can become more credible. The article links to other Wikipedia articles for related topics.

Evaluating Tone:

My article's tone is mostly neutral, but some sections have biased claims. I noticed multiple claims toward a particular position based on assumptions. These claims were missing reliable sources to back up the viewpoint of the claim. The neutral areas of the article were informational and explained the many subtopics within the article in depth. I think that some of the viewpoints are underrepresented.

Evaluating Sources:

The links in my article are working. Many citations are needed for my sources to support the claims. Not every fact has a reference with a reliable source. The information from my article comes from other topics available on Wikipedia and the reference notes. The sources provided are neutral.

Evaluating Talk Page:

Some conversations were going on behind the scenes. One of the topics discusses a common misconception when using the word ignition with relation to the development of stars. The other topic was about a merge proposal to add core-mantle differentiation as a subtopic to the article. The article is rated as a level 5 vital article. This article is a part of three wiki projects. This article is of interest to the wiki projects for geology, the solar system, and astronomy.