User:DylanR0404/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Bernard Lovell - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because when I read his name it seemed like an old-fashioned and accomplished name. My preliminary impression, surprise surprise, was exactly the same. He seems to have been a very accomplished intellect of the early 1900s. He matters because he is responsible for many small differences in the world we live in, and having the information that tells us exactly that is more than necessary.

Evaluate the article
This article's lead is incredibly concise. All it contains is the general overview and rundown of the subject's major life's work and accomplishments. It would not hurt to have added a few words discussing his experience in giving lectures and being invited in many different places to do so.

I found it somewhat bizarre to have included a detailing of Lovell's university education in the 'Career and research' section, when it could have been added to the 'Early life and education' section. This should be altered.

The information is up to date for now. The Lovell telescope has been functioning for over fifty years, this is true (although it has been functioning for over seventy-five now). It remains a productive radio telescope, yet seems to also have become a tourist attraction.

The 'Personal Life' section is quite short, but that is not a problem. There is, however, an error: "In later life Lovell was physically very frail; he lived in quiet retirement in the English countryside, surrounded by music, his books and a vast garden filled with trees he himself planted many decades before." "His books" certainly requires an oxford comma after it.

The article is written from an objective tone, even when discussing something that could very well not have been true (Lovell's assassination attempt story.)

All sources that need to be recent are adequately recent, and older sources generally consist of old set-in-stone records and papers written by Lovell himself.

The article's organization and style -including its sections, images, and writing style- is both clear and appealing. Both images used in this article are either copyright free or public domain.

This article is viewed as C class, and largely of low-importance. People have posted and discussed things to a very minimal degree. A copyrighted video was removed, a video about Lovell was posted as an external link, and finally a suggestion regarding the final sentence of the article being too poetic.

Wikipedia editors discuss these articles like they of the utmost importance, while people like us are doing this for a class project. I find that inspiring, I love when people take things really seriously. It makes me consider actually getting involved. That would be an out-of-school activity for me, though.

The article on Bernard Lovell is adequate. It is decently-written, has the necessary information and not much more, and an impressive detailing of his studies of cosmic rays to his creation of the now-called Lovell telescope. It is rated a C-class article, and I would do the same. It is acceptable. If it were juiced up with added content, modern sources, and better sentence structure, it could easily upgrade to a B.