User:LazerRocDoc/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Rock cycle

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This article was selected as it is relevant to my field of study and serves as a good introductory topic to my field. It matters to Earth Scientists as it outlines an important basic concept in geology. My preliminary impression of this article is that it was well laid out, informative, concise, and well referenced.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section- The article includes a lead sentence that concisely and clearly describes the articles topic.

- The lead section also provides a synopsis of the entire article to include a brief description of the article's major sections.

- There is no information included in the lead section that is not also presented in the article.

- As mentioned, the lead is concise and well summarizes the article.

Content

- The content of the article is very relevant to the topic.

- The article is relatively up to date. The most recent reference was from a paper from 2005 (which is not particularly recent, though in the case of a fairly well understood topic isn't too outdated either), but on the other hand, the most recent revision to the article was from January 2023.

- The content of the article appears to be quite comprehensive with no glaringly obvious omissions, nor is there information that does not belong here.

- The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

- The article is neutral

- The sources are not particularly thorough. The article draws on only 3 papers, while this topic is well studied and their is significantly more studies that could be referenced.- As mentioned, while not being particularly outdated, they aren't overly current either (most recent being from 2005).

- The sources are written from a diverse (though small) group of authors. Though Wikipedia states that it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations.

- The sources are all reputable: Textbooks, peer-reviewed articles.

- The external links/hyperlinks work.

Organization and writing quality

- The article is well written. It is concise, clear, and easy to read.

- No grammatical or spelling errors were found.

- The article is well organized with sections/sub sections that illustrate the major points of the topic well.

Images and Media

- The article includes images that illustrate the Rock Cycle process and enhance the readers ability to understand the topic.

- Some of the images are well captioned, others are not.

- All of the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations and are from the "Public Domain"

- Images are not laid out in a visually appealing way. They are all crammed at the top of the article, but there are subsections that would benefit from diagrams/images.

Talk page discussion

- There is a talk page, though it has been very inactive since 2005. There has been few updates in the talk page except for modifications of external links (2018) and a request to add geographical context for the featured rocks (2019) that has not be done.

- The article is rated "C" and is part of two WikiProjects (WikiProject Geology, and WikiProject Mining).

- This topic has not specifically been talked about in Resources of a Finite Earth, though it was covered in two separate 1000 level CU Earth Sciences classes. As this article provides more of a general overview, it is much less thorough than what I've encountered at university.

Overall impressions

- The articles overall status is that it gives a good overall view of the topic but could be further enhanced.

- The main strength of this article (in my opinion) is that it concisely summarizes are very detailed topic. It also very concisely illustrates and explains important concepts pertaining to the rock cycle while not getting bogged down in information more well suited to a subject matter expert.

- As stated by Wikipedia, improved citations would help. I also think that more diagrams could be included to help explain: Forces that drive the rock; Plate tectonics, and The role of water.

- I would tend to agree with the quality rating of the article. It is well developed and peer reviewed. I do see room to improve, update, and elaborate on some of the subsections to better illustrate the "point" of the topic.

Edit Test for Nabil (27-01-2023)