User:Lainepalmer17/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Microscope - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I like microscopes, and wanted to see what the article for them on Wikipedia was like. The first thing I noticed when I got to the page was an orange marker that says the article needs more citations to secondary or tertiary sources. But, the lead section has a good overview and an image with other links and helpful information, which is good.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section


 * Concise and clear about topic
 * Introduces the topics that will be discussed in article's contents
 * Has image with helpful links in caption

Content


 * Content is relevant to the topic of microscopes but could contain more or have a clearer organization
 * Rated as a C-class article, meaning it is missing important information or has irrelevant material
 * Contains history that is not entirely relevant to the topic of microscopes
 * The section on "types" of microscopes gets a little confusing because the history section walked through what seems like several types, but the naming is different and a little bit unclear; the Type section is more about designations and categories as opposed to types.

Tone


 * Tone seems to be neutral and most of the sections in the article have about equal representation.

Sources


 * There are 29 sources from various different authors and publications
 * Clicked on several source links, and they all functioned
 * Sources appear to support claims made in article

Organization / Quality


 * Writing is not as concise in the body as it is in the lead section
 * The organization could be improved with different sections as previously described
 * Section 2 "Types" is confusing to follow after having gone through the history of microscopes and learned about several types and how they emerged.

Images


 * There are images that help the readability and understanding of the different sections in the article
 * Might also be helpful to see an image of what the view from each microscope type in Section 1 looks like, to understand what is obtained from each microscope type that is described
 * Captions on images are sufficient

Talk Page Discussion


 * Not too much on the talk page between editors besides one edit request for other links that should be given to readers about microscopes where people can get some more information.
 * Rated as class C article
 * Is of interest to 6 WikiProjects
 * It is rated as a level-3 vital article in Technology

Overall


 * Article could use some organizational and content-conciseness editing and adjustments to increase ease of readability and overall page takeaway for readers
 * Article gives helpful history to microscopes but may be improved on uses of the different types of microscopes and what individuals utilize them, along with clearer designations of types of microscopes versus categories based on the physics behind the microscopes.
 * Article is well-developed but could be strengthened