User:Lanerino/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Avogadro constant

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this proportionality factor because of the widespread and personal use of it. I have been using it in chemistry for a few years; using it to change one unit of measurement to another. It has more in-depth uses, which are explored throughout the article. This constant matters a great deal to chemistry, as it produced Avogadro's number which is used by many chemists for decades. At first glimpse, the article seems impressive with the amount and quality of information. Also, there is proper chemistry language and numerical notation.

Evaluate the article
The lead section starts with a well written, all encompassing sentence detailing the Avogadro constant. It is a short wiki page with a few major sections, though the lead section ends with a table of contents for the later major sections of the article. The rest of the article relates back to the lead section as well. The lead section of this article is about half of the entire page, so I believe they could have more concisely stated the information in this section and expanded further with more sub-sections.

Avogadro constant is relatively stagnant in its ability to be updated and explore further, because of the specific science behind the constant. After looking at the history and talk pages of the wiki article, it seemed to be last updated majority in 2019 after the SI redefinition that reshaped the constant slightly.

The content in the article is heavily factual information in which no opinions or viewpoints are presented. I do not see any evidence of biased statements throughout the page.

The sources for the article support the facts presented very well. From what I can tell, they are all primary or secondary sources, mostly from chemical review journals and various books. Although, another wiki page is cited in the sources because of the image used. I believe this is okay for images, but not for factual information. Since this constant has been around for many years, some sources come from many years ago. Other sources are from review articles published in the past few years and support the new information in the article. All the links I checked worked, though I could not access some of the chemistry review articles. A few articles are from the same author, but the spectrum of sources is diverse even though there are less than 30 sources.

The article lacks spelling and grammatical errors, from what I can see. Although, I believe the information is a little disorganized. The bulk of the information comes from the lead section. The lead section is well written, but seems to be a conglomeration of information compared to the rest of the article. Like I stated earlier, the page can be rearranged to add more major sections and consolidate the lead section.

There are three images in the article that show three different scientists, one being Amedeo Avogadro, that attributed theories or calculations around the Avogadro constant. They do not violate the copyright rules. The images are located in logical places.

The article is a level 5 vital article in the Chemistry section. Also, it is under good article criteria. The talk page is not used much, because the article is about a constant that is stagnant in progression. From what is on the talk page, there is good and civil conversation about new rules in chemistry that affect the constant slightly. There is some discourse and difference of science opinion on some threads on the talk page, though the conversations stayed civil.

Overall, the article is very good at detailing the aspects of the constant that are relevant in today's chemistry world, as well as explaining the history and related concepts. It became a good article nominee 12 years ago, and has been in good standing ever since. Not only is it in good standing for chemistry articles, it is the same for physics articles. It is a short article, and the only problem I came across is the bulkiness of the lead section. Like I said before, a more concise lead section and more major sections could help with the overall flow and structure of the article.

Dr Heard's comments
Good evaluation, and you brought up a number of reasons the page is in the GA category. The talk page is one of the funniest I have read in a long time. I noticed one reference near the end is duplicated, which is a little odd.