User:Ellistrev/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: Fusion power
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I want to get my doctorate in physics to specialize in artificial fusion research.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
Given the complexity of the topic covered, the lead in the article does a good job of providing an overview of the topic and its sections, giving no unnecessary details or information not present in the article. The first paragraph clearly defines the topic within two sentences, and the following paragraphs summarize the sections well.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
This article is an effective summary of information regarding artificial fusion, including the history, controversy, and modern and historical research. Given that it is a broad topic of research, the variety of topics is necessary and relevant. The content is up-to-date and includes very modern research which is important when covering such a new field. It does not deal significantly with any equity gaps other than showing the lack of gender and racial diversity in the physics world in the history section of the article, which is unfortunately accurate and represented correctly.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral. It is easier to maintain neutrality on a topic like nuclear fusion than, say, a political scandal. The author spent equal time and energy into every strategy of fusion research. The one potential point of contention is when the author discredits cold fusion, however that is the widely held opinion within the scientific community so it is not pushing a personal opinion of the author's.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The articles' statements are all cited appropriately and with reliable sources that reflect modern research and updates as recent as September of 2020. The sources are not especially diverse but are representative of the actual demographics of people that earn physics PhDs. It is not a diverse field, unfortunately. The links in the article work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
I found this article very easy to understand and navigate, especially considering I am not an expert in the subject. Often physics articles can be overly esoteric and complicated, but this Wikipedia article provides an accessible base of information. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The photos are clearly captioned and relevant and enhance understanding, especially when used to explain complicated data sets. They adhere to the copyright regulations. The formatting could be more visually appealing and the images could have been spread out more evenly throughout the article because they are mostly at the beginning.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The discussions are mostly around a formatting error that resulted from organizing the history section by decade. It is part of several WikiProjects, including Physics, Environment, Energy, Science Policy, and International Relations. It is rated as a vital article and B class quality.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article does a good job of introducing the reader to the broader topics within fusion power, however it lacks visual interest. Also, I agree with the contributors on the talk page that noted that dividing the history by decade is arbitrary because the history is listed chronologically anyway, and dividing it by decade does not allow for the smooth navigation of topics.

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: