User:Fineptpen/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Popular science.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I found this article by visiting the academic disciplines category as recommended and starting with the science category page. From there, I took a look at the science education page, because that sub-field has been on my mind since it came up in my science writing extended definition group project. That's also why I then selected popular science—that was also something my group discussed in our project. I was curious as to how Wikipedia editors have chosen to tackle this topic and felt I had just enough background knowledge to provide a relatively informed evaluation of this article.

I believe it's important to have an article filling this niche because so many people (such as me prior to taking this course) approach the field of science communication as a monolith. In order to truly understand the purpose of the discipline, I think you need to understand the role it occupies and where it fits into the scientific and media landscapes at large.

Upon first glance, I was a bit surprised at how short this article was, considering the length of similar Wikipedia articles I've read such as the ones on science communication and science journalism. I would've expected there to be more sections in the in the table of contents. That said, after skimming through, what was there seemed to be consistent with my expectations as far as the actual content of the entry goes.

Evaluate the article
This article has a strong foundation, but needs to be developed further to reflect the full breadth of the modern conception of popular science. It cites reliable sources and includes relevant information, but could really benefit from acknowledging a greater diversity of sources. It could also be improved by expanding on some of the points it merely makes brief references to and incorporating more visual elements.

My comments below address these thoughts in greater detail:


 * The introductory sentence does a fairly good job of conveying the topic considering how far-reaching the definition of popular science is. It definitely airs on the side of economy, perhaps to too great an extent. It does not preview the other sections of this article. For instance, there is no reference to history in the lead. Since this is one of the most fleshed-out sections of the body, I think it deserves more attention here. A reference to the century in which popular science was conceptualized would go a long way.
 * The lead also delves into the different formats in which popular science is discussed. This point could also use more representation in the body of the article. Some examples of popular science in film and TV and on the web could be useful.
 * This article definitely over-represents the Western world’s perspective on popular science. It only references works written by Americans and Europeans. I would like to hear more about what popular science looks like in predominantly non-English speaking regions.
 * As I mentioned in my preliminary reflection, this article could definitely use more sections. I would recommend adding a section about applications of popular science, such as in the classroom, especially given that the science education category page directs here. I would also like to see a section about what popular science looks like today.
 * I would suggest separating “History and Role” into two sections. Some of the material (such as the concluding paragraph on who writes popular science works) could be placed in a third section about the genre’s authorship. This could include a discussion of the diversity (or lack thereof) of the pool of professional popular science purveyors. It could also introduce the increasingly prominent issue of AI-generated writing.
 * It would appear that all the cited sources are authored by white writers. There could easily be a more diverse collection of authors in the references.
 * I believe the claim about On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences having ten editions and being translated into several different languages requires a citation.
 * There is an error in the spelling of the name of the author who wrote the source "Introduction: Science in Culture." His first name is Murdo, not Murdz.
 * Especially if additional sections are added, this article could be improved by the addition of more images like the one depicting the title page of Mary Somerville's On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences.