User:Boomersooner16/Evaluate an Article

Evaluation of the Snowflake Wikipedia Page

Evaluating Content:


 * There is no material that is distracting in the article
 * While there is no information that is necessarily out of date, I think that the article could benefit from the adding of newer science. The most recent sources are from the early to mid 2010s and I am sure that there is new information about snowflakes that could be added to the page.
 * There are no noticeable equity gaps
 * I think that the article could benefit from some history such as the historical importance of snowflakes. I also think that more info should be provided about the formation of snowflakes. Some basic cloud physics should be included to illustrate this point. For example, the article mentions the nucleation around organic particles as the mechanism for the formation of snowflakes but does not go in-depth on this. I also think it would be valuable to include the difference between snowflakes and other types of frozen precipitation such as sleet, hail, or freezing rain.

Evaluating Tone:


 * There is no bias towards a particular viewpoint in this article
 * No viewpoints are unfairly represented or under/overrepresented

Evaluating Sources


 * Links to all of the citations that I clicked on worked fine
 * Facts are cited well by the article
 * There is a diverse array of citations for this article. That being said, I think more scientific publications would be useful. Some of the links are to blogs or web pages that may or may not have reliable information so I think pulling from more peer reviewed material would not only increase the reliability of the article but it would add some fresh new topics in as well.