User:Mirachaplin/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Peclet Number: Péclet number
 * I chose this article because we recently learned about this concept in class, and I thought it was an interesting idea with a lot of applications. Additionally, I am curious to learn more about this concept beyond what we learned in lecture, as well as to see if any of the ideas we discussed are not on the page.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
There is no lead - or, the lead is the entire article. The rest of the article should be more detailed, with the lead as a summary.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic. However, it does not seem up to date, as the two references are published in 1977 and 1980. I am sure there have been new applications of this concept since that date. All of the information in the article is relevant. However, there is simply very little content. Many facts are thrown out without connections, and there is not much explanation of the applications of the Peclet number. There could be more information about the implications of high and low Peclet number, as well as the relevance of the Peclet number for double diffusive convection.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral, and does not attempt to persuade the reader. However, this is not a very controversial topic, and I'm not sure if there are scientific debates about the Peclet number. Perhaps if the article was updated, there would be more controversy about the new material.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are only two sources. Once is a textbook, which includes an ISBN and was easy to find. The other is a citation for a different name for the Peclet number, and does not cite the precise publication using that name. The sources are not current - they were last updated in 1980. A quick google search revealed thousands of more recent articles relating to the concept of Peclet number. Not all facts are backed up with reliable secondary sources, but they most seem to be general knowledge that could be found in a textbook.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is not broken down into sections. There are no grammatical errors, but there are not connections drawn between ideas, and some concepts feel unconnected to the rest of the article.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The article includes no images.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
There is a long discussion about the relative magnitude of the Peclet number and whether it is relevant to say that it is very large - it is interesting that the person asked this question rather than just adding the information. People are discussing in which engineering applications the Peclet number is generally large and small. This was a topic which I also felt the page lacked. There is also a comment from a chemical engineer about referring to transport by bulk flow as convective rather than advective. Applications of this dimensionless number outside of environmental engineering have not been discussed in this course, and it is very interesting to see how engineers from different disciplines use and describe the same concept. This will be something I will watch for as I am editing wikipedia, as I do not want to ignore perspectives from any other field, or removing information that I view as extraneous but that another reader may view as important.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article contains valuable information about the Peclet Number from the perspectives of, presented concisely. However, it does not take into account applications of the concept, and contains no images or graphics. The article for the Reynolds Number contains more complete information drawing from many more sources,, suggesting potential pathways to revision for this article.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: