User:Jmalysa/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: Robert Boyle
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose to evaluate this article because it is about a 17th century scientist that we have encountered many times so far in the course.

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 first introductory sentence of the lead concisely includes Robert Boyle's nationality, professions, and the time period in which he lived. The Lead then continues to broadly list Boyle's contributions to science and theology, which are later developed into major sections in the content of the article. The lead does not introduce extraneous information that is not detailed later in the article. The Lead is concise and does not ramble. It also includes plenty of embedded links that lead to other Wiki articles, in case the reader requires more detail.

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 of the article is broken up into sections headed Biography, Scientific Investigator, Theological Interests, Awards and Honors, and Important Works, which are all relevant to the topic, Robert Boyle. The content is up-to-date with recent sources. The content covers Boyle's biography and his scientific and theological works/contributions that were introduced in the Lead, so there does not appear to be any missing content. The inclusion of a section enumerating Boyle's most important works is useful for those searching for primary sources of Boyle's works.

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
Since the article is about a historical topic, it is mostly neutral and unbiased. However, a problematic sentence in the "Scientific Investigator" section was encountered, namely: "Nothing was more alien to his mental temperament than the spinning of hypotheses." This sentence seems biased towards the position that Boyle was an unmistaken, errorless scientist, and should be reworded to a more declaratory tone that neutrally asserts Boyle's aversion towards spinning experimental hypotheses.

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 includes a footnote leading to a reference/citation for most facts, although the last paragraph in the section headed "Scientific Investigator" could use some more explicit citations or references since it seems to make a substantial summary about Boyle's beliefs about science (physics and chemistry) without any accompanying footnotes. The sources come from scholarly databases such as JSTOR and university-published material. The sources are definitely current and up-to-date, with plenty of secondary sources originating in the last 5-15 years. The links all correctly lead to archives of the the referenced material, as expected.

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 definitely well-written; it clearly and concisely walks through all of its content. It does not have any grammatical or spelling errors. The article is especially well-organized, breaking down the information on Robert Boyle into appropriate headings to aid readers who are looking for different information on Robert Boyle, such as those looking specifically for his biographical details, contributions to science & chemistry, theological perspectives, and especially those looking for more information about his individual works and papers.

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 includes a portrait of Boyle next to the Lead, which is useful as an image of Boyle in his adult life. As the article progresses through Boyle's biography and scientific contributions, it shows images and concepts of Boyle's notebook, air pump, and other papers. The images are placed in their appropriate sections and captioned with an identification of the object/paper and the precise date when it was creater or published. All but one of the images are on the right-hand side, which minimizes the distortion of the text in the content of the article and keeps the article easy to read. The images are all of content in the public domain, so they follow the Wikipedia copyright regulations.

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 seems to have an intense debate about Robert Boyle's nationality, namely whether it is appropriate to refer to him as "Irish" in the Lead of the article. Other than that, there doesn't seem to be much else in terms of discussing edits, besides one successful edit request removing Boyle's middle name from the article title, and one request to add another paper to the list of Boyle's Important Works. In terms of rating, the article was nominated for good articles, but it did not pass the nomination. It is part of multiple WikiProjects including those in the History of Science, Chemistry, Science and Academia, where it is identified to be of mid-to-high importance.

The talk page debate about Boyle's nationality definitely carries a more vulgar tone in some of the comments compared to class discussion, but mimics a sustained discussion where each user attempts to back their own claims up with historical data and critical thinking.

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
Overall, the article is well-written and well-organized, accompanied with appropriate and relevant imagery that interferes minimally with the text. The article does a good job of introducing the reader to Boyle through the Lead, and provides a clear and typo-free biography, accounts of Boyle's scientific and theological contributions and beliefs, and external links to both Boyle's personal works and all referenced secondary sources. However, in some places, the article seems to depart from a completely neutral tone, and those sentences should be modified. In total, the article is well-developed and is a great wealth of information about Robert Boyle.

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: