User:Guacamole21/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.


 * Name of article: (link) Ligand field theory
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Ligand field theory is an important topic in bio-inorganic chemistry because it explains how metals and ligands bond together.

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 includes a clear definition of Ligand field theory. The Lead briefly describes some of the article's major sections including Bonding, but it does not reference or discuss any of the history of Ligand field theory or the spectrochemical series. The Lead emphasizes how Ligand field theory helps determine the geometry of complexes which is why it included only information in the article. The Lead is concise and gets to the point. Overall, I think the lead is well written, but there are a few additional statements that need to be added to be complete.

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 was relevant to the topic. I think that the explanations of sigma and pi bonding were done well. However, additional images would be helpful to understand the topic better. There should be an example of how to use the spectrochemical series which would help complete the topic. The content was updated in October 2019, but there could be more recent research published about this topic. If there was recent research, that research should be added to the article. Some things that I noticed included molecular orbital theory does not have a link to its wikipedia page in the history section. This link needs to be fixed. In addition, many terms are mentioned, but not defined including SALCS. There needs to be definitions and links to pages to help explain these topics and details better.

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 relating to the science content. However, the article was biased towards men only doing research on Ligand field theory. There are females and other underrepresented groups that conduct research on ligand field theory. Also, there is no mention of recent research throughout the article. This article persuades the reader to think that men are better in science than females.

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
The article is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information which included published articles and many textbooks. These sources reflect the available literature on the topic. The sources are current, but there should be more sources cited throughout the article. The links work. Overall, I think the sources and references are of good quality, but I think there should be more than 7 sources for this topic.

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
The article is well-written in a concise, clear, and easy to read manner. The article has few grammar or spelling errrors. There are a few long sentences that I think would be better if they are broken into multiple sentences. I think that the article is well-organized into major points of the topic, but there could be more information added to the overall article.

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 article has only one image which does enhance the understanding of the topic. The caption is small and concise. I think that there could be more information in the caption to help explain the image. The image adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. There is only one image which is an issue with this article. There should be more images and examples to help explain this topic. There is a lack of visual representation throughout the article.

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 talk page includes compliments about the explanation in the article. Also, the talk page discusses grammar and content errors. The editors agreed to change some of the paragraphs to make sure it was on the correct wikipedia page. The article is rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. The article is rated as High-Importance on the project's importance scale. The article is a part of WikiProject Chemistry. This article discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class. The Wikipedia article does not emphasize that Ligand Field Theory can explain should metal complexes, but not all metal complexes. Molecular orbital theory and crystal field theory also affect metal complexes.

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's overall status is C-Class. The strengths of the article include some of its explanation of the topic. However, the article could be improved by adding more images about the subtopics and images with examples. The article can add recent research about the topic. In addition, the bias towards men can be removed. I assess the article's completeness as underdeveloped. There are many improvements needed to help the article be well-developed.

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:Ligand field theory