User:Cwilliamsth/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: (Conservation of mass)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I have chosen to evaluate this article because it is fundamental to many environmental flow problems.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the article describes very accurately that mass conservation describes the phenomenon that mass cannot decrease or increase with time within a closed system.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the lead does not include a brief description of the article's main sections. Much of the article describes how mass conservation in the quantum world includes energy, but this was not mentioned in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all information is there.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is slightly over detailed. The second half of the lead sentence could be turned into another sentence starting at "as the system's mass cannot change, so."

Lead evaluation
The lead is more targeted towards advanced readers rather than the average reader. It may take a few reads to understand the main idea of the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the article's content is relevent to the topic. Large parts of the article describe the limitations of conservation of mass at the quantum scale.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * This article is up to date as far as I am aware. However, there could have been updates to special and general relativaty that change the definition of conservation of mass that I do not know about.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, everything belongs in the article

Content evaluation
The content is good. The main points are at the begninning, which lets the reader understand the concept very quickly.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article is neurtral. It discusses the applications of conservation of mass while also discussing the limitations.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, I do not detect any biased claims.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The article seems to go over all topics (history, applications, limitations) in even, sufficient detail.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the applications and limitations are discussed evenly.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is scientific, and the balance is neutral.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, the relativity section is missing some links. there are lots of things stated without references. someone even cited "where" in a superscript to where the author did not reference the difference between mass and matter.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources are thorough
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources could be more current. There are a few sources from the 70s
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The few links I checked worked

Sources and references evaluation
The relativity section seems like a ramble rather than a scietific paper. There should be sources throughout. The rest seems to be backed up by history very well.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is not easy to read. There are some areas where the author chose to give extra details in one sentence where a second sentence would have been more readable.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, no spelling or grammar errors
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is well organized. It starts with the major idea, then discusses applications, history, and limitations.

Organization evaluation
The organization could use some work in the relativity section. The rest is fine.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article has images of historical figures, but nothing to help explain the concepts. I would prefer some moving visual of a chemical reaction to explain that mass is converted but not created or destroyed.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, pictures are well captioned with links.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, the images are laid out next to the appropriate text.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The conversation of where all the information in the relativity section came from. I think someone just took it from past experience, which is not valid.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * No, the article is not part of any WikiProjects as far as I can tell.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia discusses the topic in terms of relativity and for closed systems. There is no discussion on advection or diffusion.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * This article has been rated "C" but is "highly important."
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's strengths are the definition and history.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The relativity section needs to be reworded and better cited.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * This article is incomplete. It is poorly developed because there are not enough sources. The relativity section needs to be shortened or better explained.

Overall evaluation
I think this article deserves the "C" rating. There is lots of room for improvement.

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: