User:Karim Kalout/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) : sigma bond
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: This article talks about a major part of chemical bonding which is considered a major topic in my Chemistry major at AUB.

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

 * 1) The Lead introduces the main idea of the topic discussed later in details. Moreover, for more details regarding other topics related to this topic, citations are included to illustrate the mechanism of formation of the sigma-bond and its major role in chemical covalent bonding type, as an overall chemical principle in quantum theory.
 * 2) The Lead includes some brief details defining the sigma-bond and its role in chemical hybridization involving the interference of Molecular Orbitals (MO) in this process.
 * 3) In the body of the article, every detail discussed is present in a brief way in the Lead. However, the Lead contains some information that is not discussed in the body of the article.
 * 4) The Lead includes some overly details that should be discussed in the body paragraphs, like the bonding sigma-orbitals in Homodiatomics should not be mentioned in the topic of the article, it should be discussed in big details later as an explanation of the role of sigma-bonds in Homodiatomics.

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

 * 1) The topic of this article is about sigma-bonds, and the content of the article talks about the topic in a simple way illustrating some main points regarding its importance in chemical bonding generally. In addition, the ideas discussed in the article are related to the topic and they clearly illustrate the important notes regarding it.
 * 2) Such as article is a scientific article, and each topic discussing science is up-to-date since science is developing with technology, and every single discovery explains blurred ideas that were struck regarding a certain field of science.
 * 3) The discussion of a scientific topic,usually, opens more fields of other type of sciences that are related in a way to the topic itself. However, the article lists the important points regarding the sigma-bond topic, and it can contain more information about the relation of such bonds with other fields of life such as the inorganic molecules that are available everywhere in the human's ecosystem. I believe that such an article should be longer than that, and should discuss more ideas that are missing.

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

 * 1) In such an articles, the author should be objective since the topic discussed are considered scientific theories, and the author's opinion would not affect the credibility of the ideas. In this article, it seems neutral and direct to the point as a scientific article should be.
 * 2) There is some paragraphs that shed light on specific points without even mentioning other issues that are important in our daily life, like heating inorganic compounds to find the energy needed to break the sigma-bond formed in it...
 * 3) There are no overrepresenting or underrepresenting to certain points because the presented points are direct, but some important points are missing.
 * 4) The article is objective and neutral, discussing a scientific topic where the writer should not include his opinion or to persuade in a way or other the audience to a specific point.

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

 * 1) The facts stated in the article are taken from credible sources such as "Chemical principles" book where some schools and colleges teach students information included in it. So, secondary sources are reliable sources of information.
 * 2) The sources used are published to inform in the major of chemistry, and sigma-bond is topic in the chemistry field. These sources include information related to such a topic.
 * 3) The sources used are used nowadays as reliable sources for education in chemistry (Chemical Principles book)
 * 4) The links included provide more illustration and explanation to ideas related to the topic. They act as a support to make the idea clearer in order to simply it to readers.

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

 * 1) The article is direct to the point, words are vivid and clear and easy for the readers to understand.
 * 2) As an overall look, the article is clear of spelling errors, however it includes 1 or 2 grammatical mistakes that are not clear for the reader to see.
 * 3) This article is well-organized, it includes a Lead, and then body paragraphs divided into sections that explain the ideas written in the Lead with more details.

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

 * 1) This article contains more than 1 images that illustrate ideas stated and give a clearer image about the point discussed.
 * 2) All images are clears and represent animations of true existing issues.
 * 3) All images gives the Wikipedia copyright regulations.
 * 4) Images are well-organized, and they reflect the ideas that are not clear in paragraph form.

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

 * 1) There are some edits like picture removing and reasons are written.
 * 2) It is rated C-class and Top-importance.
 * 3) Wikipedia discusses topics in a neutral objective way, while in class everyone of us is able to say his opinion regarding the topic that is being discussed.

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

 * 1) The article overall is great but can be better. It is short, and such a topic should be discussed more in details.
 * 2) Article's strengths are represented by the accurate explanation of a certain point, where it is discussed in a simple way to understand especially pictures used.
 * 3) Add more details to the current existing one.
 * 4) The article is well-developed from the organization perspective, but it should be completed by addition of new important details.

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: