User:Constance Burns/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Ductility (Earth science)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is a bog topic in structural geology and is very interesting to me.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The first sentence does a great job of explaining the overview of what ductile deformation is in Earth science. The lead is very detailed and has an overview of what else will be talked about in the rest of the article.

Content

The articles content is up to date and also very relevant to ductile deformation. They did a very good job of covering most of the topics that are pertinent to ductile deformation. But, it is definitely written for someone who already has a pretty good understanding of general geology so if this was written with people who don't know a lot about geology, some more of the complicated concepts should be further discussed.

Tone and Balance

The article is in a neutral point of view and there are no biased statements in it. The article was written very professionally and factually. There are no overtly biased opinions and the topics that are close to being opinionated, the author states that it is assumed from extensive research. There is no persuasion pertaining to anything ductile deformation in the article. They also did a very good job of keeping each focus point about the same length and the details are fletched out so the topics are very well balanced.

Sources and References

The facts in this article are backed up by links but not everything is. This leads me to believe that the author of the unlinked statement either already knew the information of further explained topics for understanding purposes. The sources are very thorough and pertain perfectly to ductile deformation. The sources are relatively recent with the oldest being 2007 but there are much more recent and more fletched out sources about ductile deformation especially since there is always new information coming out in the scientific community. There is a diverse spectrum of authors in the sources and all the links but one work when clicked on.

Organization and writing quality

The article is very well written. It is concise and gives a lot of information and explanation on ductile deformation. There are no glaring grammatical or spelling errors that can be seen in the article. The article is also organized well. It starts out with the most important part of ductile deformation which is the brittle ductile transition zone but I personally would have put the deformation under that one instead of quantification. Otherwise, the article is organized well.

Images and Media

The article has 3 images and diagrams to further show the concepts of ductile deformation and they show up on the article in an appealing way. The images are concisely captioned and also adhere to the websites copyright regulations, from what I understand of them.

Talk page discussion

There are two different types conversations that are happening the talk page. The first one is pointing out false facts or asking for clarifications on certain sentences. The other one being an editor changing a paragraph to expand it and make it more concise. The article is park of the WikiProject Geology and it is rated as start class on the quality scale. The first comment is a way we talk in class because it is a clarification on how the increase in temperature will increase the ability of something to deform, which is something that would be talked about in class. But the other comments are coming from people who seem to know a lot more about ductile deformation than students know so they can point out discrepancy's in the articles.

Overall impressions

The article is a very good overview and dive into ductile deformation. It is laid out well and describes the topics in ductile deformation in an informative way. But, it could be confusing for someone who doesn't know a lot about geology and it also doesn't look like it has been edited much by other people. So for the article to get stronger, it should be more developed and edited and reviewed by other people. I would say the article is pretty well developed but it could also use more work to make it even better.