User:Borganbassidy/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.


 * Name of article: (link) Cosmic age problem
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I enjoy reading about physics for leisure, and thought I might as well extend that to this assignment.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Leading sentence does a fair job being clear and concise; I think more of the issue is just the overall tone. It is not the most formal. The lead does do a fair job not being super detailed, and instead umbrella-ing the topic, but it lacks stating that the cosmic age problem has changed throughout the decades since each of the major sections of the article is separated by time periods.

Content

 * Guiding questions

The information contained within the article is relevant to the cosmic age problem. The last time the article was updated was in September of 2019. The content itself could use some revising, and although relevant information, more detailed information is needed to better understand the concepts and ideas scientists struggled with when dealing with the cosmic age problem.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

It is not necessarily that the article is biased toward one position or another since there is only one item presented in the article. The author does, however, use a tone that makes the reader believe there is complete faith in the current model of the age of the universe. Using phrases like "a more reasonable estimate" or calling the Big Bang Model at certain points throughout time as "seriously wrong." Many of these sentences need to be omitted or heavily revised, considering a major part of physics is finding issues with "current" models and ideas of thought. The article seems to more or less claim that our current model for the age of the universe is accurate, but perhaps scientists around 50 years ago thought their "current" models were quite accurate. Basically, what I mean to say is that nothing is for certain, so the absolute tone suggests what we know currently is the most accurate we can achieve.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources seem reliable and current. Of the links I checked, all seem to function.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Comparatively, this article doesn't meet the same standard I've seen for higher rated Wiki articles. It is easy to read, but not very formal whatsoever, and I feel like it would still be possible to give detailed, clearly, and easily understandable information while appearing formal. Grammar appears fine, the sections are clearly divided. However, I don't feel that breaking up the issue into periods of time was the strongest way to divide the article into sections. Instead, perhaps it should have labeled sections according to different breakthroughs throughout the 20th century.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There are no images presented in the article.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There's an entire talk section for this article where to wiki accounts seem to basically be arguing about the idea of time dilation and lack of uniformity with time. Thus One account claims the entire article as pseudoscience and "failing basic reasoning." Other accounts just point out the lack of precision with word choice. This was a C rated article, and yes it is a part of Wiki Projects.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The overall importance rating is Low. I think perhaps the strongest thing about the article is perhaps its lead. The majority of information provided was accurate, although could stand to be more precise. Revising the majority of the sentences would do wonders to the article. I would say that this article is underdeveloped at best.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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: