User:Millie Deroy/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Emerald

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I've always been interested in gemstones. Gemstones are important as they are widely used across the world for mutliple reasons, such as culture, healing, decoration, etc. I thought this article was good looking when I first opened it and had lots of content for me to digest and analyse.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: The article does provide a good lead section with an introductory sentence to the topic. However, it does not include a brief description of the article's major sections. In the lead, the article mentions "material being trapped inside the gem's formation, so their toughness is classified as poor". However this information is not talked about again throughout the article. Overall, the lead is concise with 4 sentences.

Content: The article's content is relevant to the topic; every subsection has its own purpose. There are many references from 2010 and older, however there are also some from as late as 2021. Therefore, the content is mostly up-to-date. All the content is present; nothing missing. This page does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps and does not address topics related to underrepresented topics.

Tone and Balance: The article is neutral, and no claims appear to be heavily biased. No viewpoints are overrepresented. There are no minority viewpoints. The article does not persuade in favour of one position.

Sources and References: Not all facts are backed up by a reliable secondary source. The sources do reflect the available topics. Some sources are current, others are a little out-dated. Some sources are written by more than one author, while others are not. There are, in fact, some peer-reviewed articles that could replace some of the less reliable sources. All links appear to be working.

Organization and Writing Quality: The article is well written and very easy to read. The article does not appear to have any grammatical errors. The article is well broken down into sections that are clear to the topic.

Images and Media: The article includes pictures that are relevant to the topic. The images could use better captions. Yes, all images seem to adhere to Wikipedia's regulations. The images are laid out in an appealing way.

Talk Page Discussion: Conversations happening behind the scenes are mostly in relation to a hoax being found, where the "King of Canada Sean Robert Gehani Emerald" is mentioned. The page is also being rated as level 4 and C-class and is of interest for certain other pages like Gemology, Mining and Geoglogy. A request has been made for an audio version of this article to be made. Also, there is a request to update an external link.

Overall Impressions: Overall, the article is not bad. I'd give it a 7/10. I'd say the article's strenghts lie within it's organization and writing. It's very well-divided, clear and easy to read with no mistakes. The article could be improved by updating its references and using more peer-reviewed articles. The article is overall well-developed, but could be improved.

~. Millie Deroy