User:Kassaray/Evaluate an Article

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

Rock (geology)

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 this article because a) I really like rocks and b) chemical and biological reactions that exist today could have potentially stemmed from rocks or meteors that came from outer space in the past, which is, at a simplified level, what our class is about (even though we focus a lot on marine life).

The article matters because it helps people understand that rocks (along with everything that goes with rocks) is more complicated than people may give it credit for, and it's a fascinating science that should be learned about more.

In terms of an initial impression, I appreciated the short yet concise sections of the article. It wasn't overwhelming to read or hard to follow.

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.)

Lead Section


 * Good introductory sentence
 * Brief descriptions of all sections present
 * Mentions of all things are found in the article
 * I found the lead section to be concise, allowing further sections to go into detail. An interesting thing to note: the lead was longer than many of the following sections but I think this is due to a linking of many other Wikipedia articles that lead to further information about each topic at hand.

Content


 * Content appears up to date and relevant to related topics it links to.
 * There's no content missing and everything mostly seems to fit well. My only issue is that some sections, such as the "Extraterrestrial rocks" section is too short, and isn't entirely relevant, given the information provided in the section.
 * The article does not deal with equity gaps

Tone & Balance


 * For most of the article, the tone is neutral. I did find a couple of sentences that could present some bias, including the phrases "most important" and "varies greatly".
 * The viewpoints of the article are not over/under represented
 * Overall, the article is informational and doesn't go one way or another

Sources & References


 * All facts appear to be backed up by the source material it came from appropriately
 * The dates on the sources vary, but many are recent and up to date
 * The authors of the sources aren't really diverse. There are a few non-white male authors and one white female author, while the rest of white men. Pretty much all of them are older than 40 or 50 years old, as far as I can tell.
 * The information, other than perhaps recently published research papers, is as reliable as can be.
 * The few links I tried all worked, as they should.

Organization & Writing quality


 * The article is well-written, concise, and clear. It's quite easy to understand (and anything that isn't, there's another Wikipedia article attached to explain a word, phrase, or concept.
 * As far as I can tell, the grammar and spelling on the article are fine
 * The sections reflect the topic breakdown appropriately

Images & Media


 * I wouldn't say the images help increase understanding. They're pretty to look at and help provide a visual to what's being talked about.
 * The pictures are well-captioned
 * As far as I can tell, the images follow Wikipedia's rules and regulations
 * Yes, the way the pictures are laid out are visually appealing as you scroll down the page

Talk page discussion


 * Most of the conversations seem displeased by the lack of information present, along with the vagueness of the word 'rock'.
 * It's rated C-class, and it's part of several WikiProjects, such as "Geology", "Rocks and minerals", "South Africa/PSP SA", and "Materials".

Overall impressions


 * After going through everything, this article has a long way to go. It's got a solid foundation for an article, but it's in need of improvement.
 * Strengths: concise, an easy read
 * Weaknesses: not enough information
 * I would call this article under-developed. It's on its way to being a good, well-developed article, but it needs more authors to contribute more, relevant information that will really fill out the concepts of Rocks (geology).