User:Nduc5420/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.


 * Name of article: Magnetic semiconductor
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I wrote my thesis on two instances of magnetic semiconductors, so I felt if I can contribute to anything, it would be to this.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not really. There is a Table of Contents, but the Lead doesn't really talk about where it is going.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I feel it could be more concise.

Lead evaluation
No major changes needed. Perhaps move some information to body of article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, very much so.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The most recent reference is to a journal article from 2010. I know of several peer-reviewed articles published more recently than that.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The article is very brief. The section on 'Materials' could include the results of experiments, not just suggested materials.

Content evaluation
Improve with more up-to-date peer-reviewed research.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Tone and balance evaluation
No suggestions on improvement.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No(t completely).
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
Add additional sources from more recent research.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It's concise and probably easy to read for an expert. It could be made clearer for those with less knowledge.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Nothing glaringly obvious.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, though some stuff in the Lead could be moved to the main body.

Organization evaluation
Good, but maybe make it easier for someone with less experience to understand.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Images and media evaluation
Perhaps add figures of doped lattices.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Acknowledgement that the article needs a lot of work.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * No rating. Part of Physics WikiProject.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It's much more technical.

Talk page evaluation
There isn't much here. Maybe get people talking to help improve page.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Good.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Tone and references.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More recent references. More fleshed out.  More accessible to novices.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * There is a lot more that could be added.

Overall evaluation
Good, but has a lot of room to expand.

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: