User:Cassidymwagner/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Eddy (fluid dynamics)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I have some background in the field, specifically in mesoscale eddies. Eddies are a key piece of understanding the natural world through physics and fluid dynamics -- we experience their effects in our daily lives and in some of the most difficult science questions. My initial impression is that the article is well-written, although some sections are much more thorough than others.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead section: relatively detailed, potentially over detailed in the description of the eddy structure. Vortex and Rossby wave examples also seem out of place in a lead, might be better in a subsection about types of eddies

Content: detailed in some areas but lacking in an overall structure/narrative. It would be good to see more general subsections such as "Theory", "Types of Eddies", and something about eddy relevance in various fields. Article is heavier on physical oceanography content than other fields of science/engineering that deal with eddies (aerospace, astronomy, plasma physics, etc). Content is reasonably up-to-date.

Tone: neutral tone, just some bias towards amount of information for physical oceanography subjects, as mentioned above.

Sources: variety of fields represented in sources. Not enough citations in mesoscale eddy section. Most citations are peer-reviewed articles/papers, and links work.