User:Greenflower275/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Calcium reactor

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because my favorite area of research is coral, and I want to learn about how aquarium raise corals chemically, when they are not in their natural environment. This article is important to understanding technologies that can sustain corals' lives for research or entertainment purposes (aquariums). When I first looked through the article, I was impressed with the detailed explanation of how Calcium reactors work chemically. There was a lot of details regarding chemical compounds needed for the reactors to work and the pH regulations, requirements to optimize Calcium reactors' activity.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

The lead includes a concise and topic descriptive introductory sentence

The lead doesn't have a brief description of the major sections of the article

The lead doesn't have additional information that isn't written in the article

The lead is concise

Content:

The article's content is relevant to the topic

The content isn't up to date

All the contents belonged to the topic. There might be possible content lacking as the sources aren't up to date

The article does deal with gaps of Wikipedia. It does address topic related to somewhat underrepresented topics

Tone and Balance:

The article sounds neutral

There are no biased claims

There aren't any overrepresented or underrepresented information

There aren't any fringe viewpoints. All necessary viewpoints are discussed accurately

The article doesn't persuade the readers anything

Sources and References:

All facts in the article are based on reliable secondary sources

There are 2 sources. One source was partly thorough, most links that were referenced from the source itself didn't work, only one did. The other source is not thorough

The sources are not current. They are at least about 15 years ago

The sources were not written by a variety of authors but only one author. One of them referenced the work that they got their ideas from.

There are better sources available for example I found one valid scientific source

The sources provide by the Wikipedia article all worked

Organization and writing quality

The article is well written

The article doesn't have major grammatical or spelling errors

The article was a little messy, it isn't broken down into sections

Images and Media

The article include images that enhance understanding of the topic

Images are well-captioned

All images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations

Images are laid out in a visually appealing way

Talk page discussion

The conversations center around the addition of some abiotic factors that are important for fishes. There was also another feedback however this feedback proposes to add unnecessary information, that isn't the main focus of the topic.

The article is C- class. It is not any part of the wiki project

We don't talk about calcium reactors in class. However, the way the author described the chemical reactions of the undergoing processes of the calcium reactors is similar to the presented chemical reactions in class through style

Overall Impressions

The article overall is great in terms of going in depth in pieces of information available, however, the underlying sources to back up author's writing as well as organization into paragraphs need to be implemented

The article's strength is the author's ability to go in depth into the chemistry of Calcium reactors that is easy to understand for readers

The article can be improved by updating the information by finding more up to date sources and organizing the texts into paragraphs when necessary

The article is underdeveloped