User:Leafsfan3/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Organic synthesis

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 choose this article because I am interested in organic synthesis, and during my time in labs at UBC I have had to conduct many organic synthesis'.

My preliminary impression of the article was that it seemed to have a good breadth of content. There was good incorporation of information about synthetic routes, though there seems to be a few missing pieces of information throughout the article.

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.)

Upon first sentence the article reads well, indeed when executing an organic synthesis you are intentionally making organic products, though there is little elaboration on what an organic product is. Inclusion of carbon focused chemistry might be beneficial. The introduction then segway's into debatable information in the introduction as the claim that organic compounds are often more complex than inorganic complexes. This feels like an unnecessary comparison to make in the introduction. Following this comparison is an introduction of the topics the article will cover, though the list is not exhaustive. In reality only two of the topics listed is discussed in the article. The introduction of the article isn't overly detailed, and a reader may be able to pull the key ideas of organic synthesis from the article.

When thinking about the headers of the article; total synthesis, stereochemically selective synthesis and the methodology of the synthetic route, a broad range of content is covered. All the content is relevant to the topic and is directed towards a deeper understanding of organic syntheses. The article lacks an in-depth explanation of techniques preformed during organic syntheses, as well as an example of lengthy organic syntheses. These attributes would provide the reader with a better bearing of the content being shared as well as the challenge of developing more industrial level synthetic routes.

Throughout the article the tone remains neutral. The only claim that felt like it did carry a non-neutral tone was at the beginning of the introduction when the author expressed how organic molecules are more complex than inorganic. This claim comes without a citation and doesn't seem to hold any bearing to the topic at hand. Additionally there are many outrageously complex inorganic compounds, though it feels like the author is taking a personal stance in saying that organic compounds are more complex. Throughout the rest of the article the reader is not persuaded one way of another, and holds a relatively neutral tone.

Sourcing within this article is a tad random. At times an adequate source is supplied but at other times no source is provided. There are many citations that are just the lacklustre [when?] or [citation needed] throughout the article. Of the sources provided, many are around 20 years old. Though when discussing more current literature on stereoselective syntheses the sources provided are more current accurately reflecting more prominent publications. The links provided do also link to the appropriate publications as well.

The article is well written though does contain a few grammatically challenging sentences that could confuse a reader. The sentence "Each step of a synthesis involves a chemical reaction, and reagents and conditions for each of these reactions must be designed to give an adequate yield of pure product, with as few steps as possible," starts the methodology and applications paragraph. The sentence may confuse the reader as to which of the 3 listed items must be designed to give and adequate yield. The sentence then continues to state the organic synthetic route should take as few steps as possible. This run on sentence could be rewritten to say; "Each synthetic step must involve target reagents to enact a chemical reaction. Conditions for each step must be designed such that an adequate yield of product is obtained in as few steps as possible." This conveys the message though doesn't confuse the reader to as much of an extent.

Surprisingly when reading this article there is no media assistance for the key points. I made a statement earlier saying that as a reader it would be beneficial to see an example of an intense synthetic route as it would make the information about designing these routes with as few steps as possible more tangible. In addition to images of synthetic routes, the article may benefit from images of key pieces of lab ware used during an organic synthesis. For example, the inclusion of a separtory funnel or a vacuum filtration apparatus may help the reader follow what actions must be taken during a synthetic procedure. It may also allow the article to shift from theory heavy to a more practical and accessible basis.

On the Talk page there is very little conversation occurring. There was a request for a novel synthesis of a spirocycle in 2008 and a request to read an article about phenols in 2023. Neither of which resulted in large follow up conversation or any action on the main wikipedia article. The article is rated as a level 5 vital article in science though it is rated as C-class in the content assessment scale. The way wikipedia has discussed the article provides a quick synopses of the impact of the article and the adequacy of it.

Over all I found the article covered a broad range of content well and incorporated many key details about organic synthesis. I found the writing of the article was a bit choppy and in-cohesive at points which may make the reader misunderstand the content. A thorough read through of the article would substantially assist the grammatical inconsistencies, though the article lacks sources in many cases which requires a more in depth rewrite or incorporation of sources to be delt with. I think this article has the potential to be developed further, therefore I would say this article is underdeveloped.