User:Jdb004/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

High-κ dielectric - Wikipedia

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

I chose this article to evaluate because I have learned a little about it in my classes and wanted to see more. This matters because it is a step in the shrinking of transistors and has marked an important shift in transistor fabrication.

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 is well written, and the first sentence is a brief definition of what it is. It gives a brief description of the major sections although not in the order they appear.

The content is relevant to the topic but is lacking in overall content. The materials and considerations section are outdated and should be updated to reflect newer materials and newer methods of adding the dielectric, especially for FINFET technologies. The Use in Industry section is heavily outdated (last updated 2007) and most manufacturers now use high-k dielectrics and have continued to innovate with higher and higher k values. I feel there should be more information on why certain dielectrics leak more than others and there should be more examples of the type of dielectric used.

The article is neutral and does not seem to push any one narrative or another.

The sources are thorough although quite out of date as I mentioned earlier. This 5th source/reference no longer works and simply points to current award recipients. These sources are written by a mildly diverse set of authors. There are definitely better and more up to date sources available that would enhance this article.

The article is well written and organized although the section titled First Principles could be renamed to better represent the idea its conveying. I could not find any spelling or grammatical errors but perhaps the first principles and drain current sections could use a something in the first sentence that would provide context for the rest of the section.

The images are useful to understanding the article and are well captioned. The images appeal to Wikipedia's standards and are laid out nicely.

The conversations are mainly talking about how the article is outdated or they were looking for a more ambiguous dielectric article not one for semiconductors. This article does not seem to be rated but is a part of the physics, electronics, and technologies projects. The articles overall strengths are in its discussion of the math and reasoning behind moving to higher k dielectrics. The article is underdeveloped and could use an update.