User:Azg20/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Beat (acoustics))

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I just recently learned about how the beats work in my physics of sound class. This article matters to me because we listen to beats in everyday like music. I want to see how often we hear beats in our daily life and how we hear beats in our ears. My preliminary impression of this article is that it was kind of short but concise.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:


 * I believe that the lead section includes the introduction sentence clearly describes the topic of the article.
 * The lead didn't include a brief description of each of the major sections for this article.
 * The lead didn't include information that wasn't in the article.
 * I believe that the lead was concise.

Content:


 * The article's content is relevant to the topic.
 * The article was last edited on March 10th 2021.
 * I believe that there wasn't any content missing or didn't belong in the article.
 * The article doesn't deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and doesn't address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance:


 * I believe that the article came form a neural point of view.
 * There weren't any claims that appeared to be biased towards a particular point of view.
 * I think that the "Uses" section was underrepresented.
 * There aren't any minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described in this article.
 * The article doesn't try to persuade the readers to be in favor of one point of view over the other.

Sources and References:


 * Most of the facts in the article are backed up by a reliable source secondary of information.
 * All the sources are thorough.
 * Most of the sources are current but some of them aren't current at all.
 * The sources were written by a diverse spectrum of authors but they weren't historically marginalized individuals.
 * I believe that I can find better sources available to make this article even better for the readers.
 * The links that I clicked on in the article was working well.

Organizations and Writing Quality:


 * I believe that the article was well-written.
 * From what I observed, I didn't see any grammatical errors in this article.
 * I believe that this article was very well-organized.

Images and Media:


 * The article includes some images and media to better enhance the reader's understanding of the topic.
 * The images were well-captioned.
 * All images adhered to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * The images are laid out in a visually appealing way.

Talk Page Discussion:


 * The conversations were very respectful among the editors. There were times that some editors had to delete some of the editors' contributions because they violated some rules. It's not active because the last entry was in 2018.
 * The article is rated as a level-5 vital article in Science and Physics and is apart of the Wiki Project Physics.
 * The Wikipedia discussed this topic differently compared to our physics of sound class because we talked the beat formula in physics: B= |F2-F1|. In the Wikipedia, they talk giving more information what beats is when it comes to music and simplify the information in a way that people who aren't interested in music or in physics will understand it better.

Overall Impressions:


 * The article's overall status is that it is an article that doesn't have too much information included on the topic but it is clear and concise.
 * The article's strengths are the information that they are already is good and cited pretty well. The images that the article has is very accurate and helpful to the readers if they can't understand what is written in the major section.
 * The article can be improved by giving more information about each of the major sections because it could be confusing to others that aren't involved in music or physics.
 * I think that the article was a little bit underdeveloped.