User:Doodleflip42/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: Time-dependent density functional theory
 * I chose to evaluate this article because I am currently doing research in a group that studies the application of TDDFT on Titanium Oxide clusters for the purpose of harvesting solar energy.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is relatively concise but includes quite a bit of technical language.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Most citations are from the 1980s, when TDDFT was first formalized, but there are some recent developments included from 2008.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It does not, as it is a science article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Sources are not as current as they could be, as they are mostly from the time during which the theory was developed.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The spectrum of authors is not necessarily diverse.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is concise, but not necessarily clear or easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * 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


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Not many conversations are going on currently, as there has not been too much development in recent years.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated C-class, and it is part of WikiProject Physics.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * More math

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * C-class
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The strengths are that it includes a nice conceptual overview of the topic but then gives enough detail on the mathematics to provide a solid understanding.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article could be improved by including brief discussions of some of the important applications of TDDFT for studying materials.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is not underdeveloped, but also not well-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: