User:Johenn11/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Flash photolysis

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because this method was used in an academic paper I recently read for my class. Learning more about different methods is important as I progress in my career/growth as a scientist. My preliminary impression was that the article is short; overall it is thorough and concise.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The first sentence gives a short description of what flash photolysis is and that it is a laboratory technique (the context in which its used)
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There aren't any separately headed sections throughout the article, therefore it does not.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No it does not.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The first paragraph is throughout yet concise detailing the process by how flash photolysis occurs.

''Due to the length of the article there isn't necessarily a "lead section", however if we evaluate the first paragraph as the lead then it gives the main process by which this method works. I believe this is a good first section of the article. However, a lead paragraph could be developed that gives an overview of what will be covered.''

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the articles content stays completely relevant to the topic throughout it's duration
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * There are no sources used from a recent time period. In order to increase its legitimacy as up to date some recent sources could be used.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There could be some added content of important experiments (or any specific experiments) that were done using this method. There is no content that doesn't belong.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No.

''The content is detailed and concise. It contains only relevant information. However, it lacks recent sources and could include some relevant/important experiments that this method has been used in over the last 5-10 years (or prior if they were extremely important).''

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * What experiments there are used in are underrepresented
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * There are no minority or fringe viewpoints in this article
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

The article is neutral in its viewpoint, contains no fringe viewpoints, but could add some relevant experiment content.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No -- there is only one source listed after one fact.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The source does give credibility to the invention of the method, however more are needed.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No. The one source referenced is from 1967.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * There are more sources available than what was used in this wikipedia article, including other encyclopedia and textbook sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

''This article could use quite a few more references as only one is used. There are sources available that could be used to cite most of the information given within this article.''

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * If more details and information was given, then more sections could be used. This article could be split into one more paragraph to detach how it was invented from how it is currently used.  Overall though the article is well organized for the information it currently contains.

Overall the article is concise, contains relevant details and is organized clearly.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

''There are no images used in this article. An image of the machinery usually used in this method could be advantageous.''

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are none.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is Stub-rated and rated as low importance. It is apart of WikiProjects Chemistry.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There is nothing on the talk page.

There are no current discussions on the talk page, however it is part of WikiProjects Chemistry.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article appears to be complete but is rated as Stub-Class and Low-Importance.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article is concise yet gives decent detail onto the history of the method, the mechanism of how it works, and briefly covers what it's current uses are.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article could offer more information on what experiments this method has had a huge role in, and more about what it is currently used for.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Overall the article is mainly complete. It could use a bit more information in some areas and maybe include the use of some sections to better organize that information.  It could also use a substantial amount of references for the information that is included as there is only one.