User:JAckerley/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Refrigerator

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose the refrigerator because it is a relatively recent invention that went thorough rapid development and popularization in the 1920's which played a role in the culture shifts of that era. Historically, it used more natural means to cool food items but more contemporary designs use gas compression to achieve colder temperatures. These more modern refrigerators matter because they have allowed for a shift in the quality and make up of the modern population. My initial impressions of the article is that it is well written and there is quality information provided however some sections including the social influence and ecological impact need expansions and many technical aspects of the article require citations.

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 clearly defines the topic the article is about and gives solid background information about refrigerators. The lead section also does a good job outlining the other topics presented in the article, and is appropriately detailed and concise. The components of the article are all relevant to the topic and are mostly given appropriate weight to the topic. The components about social impact and environmental consequences are brief and require more content and citations, but otherwise the article has good content. The content on the article is relevant and well written. The information is up to date, having recent revisions and citations from recent sources and publications. To my knowledge, there are not any missing components to the article. This article does not relate to any Wikipedia equity gaps, or does not refer to these equity gaps in the article. I do not believe there are any specific equity gaps that need to be addressed relating to this topic. This article approaches the topic from a neutral and analytical viewpoint. Due to the nature of the article, being about a specific technology, there are not any specific viewpoints or fringe viewpoints that surround the topic and the article is written in a way that does not sway the reader in any direction. The section of the article on the environmental impact does not take a stance on the impacts refrigeration has had on the environment and just states the facts surrounding the topic. The cited articles supporting the article are recent and reliable. Many of the cited information related to historic or technical information which usually does not not have a diverse perspective, nor would specifically benefit from a diverse perspective because it is analytical data and information. A section that would benefit from more diverse perspectives is the impact on society section, because it currently contains information that appears to be true however is not backed with any citations. Many similar cases are common through the article where there aren't citations for statements that require a source. The links for the citations work and link to their respective articles and the articles are from reliable sources, and peer reviewed publications. The article does not contain any blatant spelling or grammatical errors, and it is well organized by topic. Pictures in the Article are well captioned and cited in the articles reference section. They are laid out in a way that does not interfere with the reading of the article and in a way that they contribute to the understanding of the information they are next to. The published talk page is short and has topics from more than 10 years ago. Conversations that have been resolved in the past seem to have been moved into an archive talk page recently by a Wikipedia bot. The archived talk page is extensive and includes recent conversations and additions to the article. This article is part of several wikiprojects including Food and Drink, Home living, and Technology. Overall this article is well put together and effectively conveys the information surrounding the topic of refrigerators. Overall this article is good for providing general information but need more work to be adequate for more intensive research purposes. Its strengths are that it is easy to read and understand and doesn't have any overly complicated sentences or concepts. It is week in the aspect that it needs more citations for information and there are several parts of the document that signify this because there are many citation needed tags. I would say this article is underdeveloped and could use work to make it a more reliable source. Specifically it needs more citations and the social impacts of refrigerators needs to me expanded. On the technical aspects of refrigerators, information needs to be backed up but I believed that the concepts discussed are accurate.