User:Gac8cx/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Vesto M. Slipher

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because I've always been interested in Edwin Hubble and Vesto Slipher did work with and relating to Hubble's, and his page doesn't seem to be very in depth yet. My preliminary impression of this article is that it's very short for who he is. There are a few brief sentences about his accomplishments and discoveries. What was written seems to be very important to the history of science and astronomy, such as his part in the discovery of Pluto, and a few other major properties of galaxies.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead section of this article is really short, just three sentences. It does give a brief summary of what will be covered, but I think it could say even more, as the rest of the article is missing a lot of information too. It is concise, but I think it could include more to make it a higher quality lead section.

The content does all look to be relevant to Vesto Slipher's life and accomplishments. The references range from being published in 1969 up to 2007. This might be up-to-date, but it's hard to tell just by looking here. I believe there definitely is content missing, as the brief mentions of what he did likely have a much bigger story to them.

The tone of the article is neutral. I am not noticing any obvious biases or intent to persuade the reader. Overall it seems to be fair, just incomplete.

The references are mostly from professional or academic societies, so I would say yes, they are reliable. As I said before, the publication dates of the references range from 1969 to 2007, so they might not necessarily be current. With my limited knowledge, I would probably say that there hasn't been much published in recent years about Slipher, as he isn't a well known name and his work has all been built upon since his studies. The links I checked worked just fine.

The article is easy to read. It's not overly complicated to read and I didn't notice any grammar or spelling mistakes. It is broken down into the lead section, Biography, and Awards. I think it could be split up further, such as into a personal biography and separate summary of his work.

There are only two images. His headshot is quality enough, but the other photo is probably too small and you can't really tell who is who.

The talk page has a few messages in it, mostly about modifying links. The article is rated as a C-class. The wikiprojects it is part of is astronomy, science and academia, and United States/Arizona/Indiana.

Overall, it's a fine article. It is well written and concise. I do believe that it could be improved a lot though. Much more could likely be added, more specifically about what Sipher did in his work, rather than just a couple sentences saying a simple summary. The article is definitely underdeveloped.