User:Ellyset25/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.


 * Optical levitation: Optical levitation
 * I chose to evaluate this article because it is a topic I know a lot about.

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
The lead sentence is strong but probably should not reference a specific person as having created the method, it was developed by many over time. It also does not describe what follows in the remainder of the article. The Lead is concise but includes more information than just summarys as it should.

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?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant but not inclusive of all areas of this study. It focuses on a few specific points without covering the broad scope of the research or going much into detail.

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 and professional, but is has underrepresented much of the theory behind this principle such as the Crooke's radiometer. It does not try to sway the reader one way or the other.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Much of the beginning of the article is not cited and is simpy claimed in summary. The sources that are there, however, are professional and reliable peer reviewed papers. The links to them 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 would say the article is concise, clear, and easy to read. I only found one spelling error and it is organized pretty well.

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 image included is relevant and has a good caption, however there is a request in the talk page for a better description of the propagation of the laser as it relates to spherical aberration and I agree with these changes. It adheres to the copyright regulations because it is owned by wikipedia. The image is visually appealing.

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 article is not yet rated but it has some discussion on the removal of a bad reference source and some complaints about the image that was used.

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 needs to be longer but I like how professional it is. It needs more sections and sources. Definitely should broaden the range of things it discusses.

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: Talk:Optical levitation