User:Diyadang/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Bond energy

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am a chemistry student and it describes a fundamental principle in chemistry. The article matters because the topic it covers is one of the earliest things that chemists must learn to begin understanding the concept of chemical bonds. My preliminary impressions of the article are very positive. It effectively covers the basics of such an expansive topic in a concise and non-intimidating way while also including several links to other articles that the reader can follow if they are interested in reading more deeply into the subject.

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.)

The lead section includes a concise and informative first sentence and effectively describes the main sections of the article. All of the information that it presents is explained later in the article and, besides a few specific examples, it is not overly detailed. Perhaps the examples could be separated into their own section with a unique subheading?

The content is relevant and up-to-date. Some sources are very old but others are much more recent and most of the described concepts were discovered a long time ago so having old sources is not necessarily a problem. There is no missing or extraneous content and the article makes no social commentary that may deal with equity gaps or marginalized groups.

The article is neutral and features no apparent biases. It neither overrepresents nor underrepresents any viewpoints, which is expected for a scientific concept that is as old and well-substantiated as bond energy. The article also makes no attempt to persuade the reader in any way.

Many of the sources were relatively old (i.e., 6 of the 11 sources are from before the year 2000) and one of the sources from 2013 looks like a shady website, but the remaining 4 articles are from recent journal articles and textbooks. The shady website also only contributes a single definition to the article so it could very easily be replaced by a more scholarly-looking one (e.g., this journal article by Derek W. Smith that features the same definition with almost exactly the same wording: https://doi.org/10.1039/FT9969204415). The sources cover all the major facts presented in the article and all claims in the article are backed up by a source. A consequence of so many of the articles being so old is that most of their authors are white men. This results in there being very little diversity in the authors. All source and reference links work.

The article is very clear and concise. All information is presented in an easy-to-read form without sounding wordy or too oversimplified. There are no grammatical or spelling errors. The article is very well-organized, featuring four main sections that divide the information. Additionally, one of these sections is a "see also" section that features links with related information if the reader is interested in pursuing the topic further.

The article does not contain any images, but does contain some equations and short reaction diagrams embedded within the paragraphs to help illustrate certain points. These figures are positioned effectively within the article and come accompanied with sufficient explanations to help inform the reader of what they represent. The article has no images that could violate Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

The talk page discussed in the past possibly changing the title of the article to avoid a redundant redirection from another article called "Bond Energy." It also has some comments about dead links in the sources section that have since been fixed and someone who wants explicit number values for some bond energies to be included somewhere in the article. It is part of the "chemistry" WikiProject. This article's explanation of the topic is far more surface-level compared to how it is discussed in class. This is expected since the article only aims to give a very general understanding of the topic to an audience that very likely consists of people with very little chemistry background while my classes assume we already have a relatively strong chemistry background.

The article is of very high quality. It features a wide range of information that effectively covers the major points of the topic and organizes the information in very easy-to-consume sections. The article could be improved by updating some of the sources to newer or more scholarly versions. Overall, the article is complete and fully developed.