User:Grace.volk7/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
This is a link to the article I am reviewing.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I found this article by narrowing down a time period from science articles. I had not heard of this scientist, so I thought it would be easier to evaluate without the possibility of bias toward the topic.

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 was done very professionally. It provided broad information on the scientist and highlighted the key elements without going into too much detail. It does not include information that is not present elsewhere in the article, and I do not think it was too concise or too wordy.

The content of the article is all relevant to his life and career. As this person died in 1852, the content is up-to-date, containing information from his early life and career up to his death. The content is all related, so I would not say that there is any content that does not belong. As far as content missing, it is a relatively short page, so there must be some details missing about his work, but the main details and broad descriptions of his contributions are present.

This article is written with a neutral view and does not point toward bias one way or another. There is no evidence or persuasion or underrepresentation of viewpoints.

There are a long list of citations for this short article, which tells me that this is a notable topic. Most of the articles are from peer-reviewed journals or published by professionals from a university, but there is one that is from a craft website. The links do work, except one link to an ISBN takes the reader to a Wikipedia page titled "book sources." Overall, most of the sources are accredited and useful, but there are a couple that seem out of the ordinary and could use some further research.

This article is easy to read and organized clearly. I did not find any spelling errors, but the use of commas is extensive in the "Later life" section. The organization as a whole is very well done and easy to decipher. It does not jump from one topic to the next without a clear path.

There are only two images for this article, and both include helpful captions underneath. Both of the images are public domain, meaning they adhere to the Wikipedia rules about copyright infringement. As there are only two images, it is difficult to determine the appealing nature of their placement, but they do not take away anything from the article, so I would say they are placed in a nice location on the page.

There is only one discussion on the talk page, and it was written by an Archive Bot. It states that a link was fixed, but there are no replies to its work or any additional comments. This article was rated Start-class by WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia. The Start-class means that this article is incomplete. It could also be given this designation for its sources: if they are not reliable, the article can be given this distinction.

My overall impression of this article is that it is well organized, but it could use some more in-depth research and more information. It is a short article, and the descriptions of his contributions to science are rather short. I think in its current state this article is a little underdeveloped. With some further research and more reliable sources, I think this page could improve dramatically.

Dr. Heard's comments
Good - I think you have done everything asked for in the assignment. Note that several of the sources are secondary or tertiary sources. Reference 1 is a book (weirdly referenced to an internet archive copy of a book), reference 3 is a dictionary, 8 is a review etc.