User:Nidazia/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Painite

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I preferred to evaluate a geological article and when I searched for the world's rarest rock, painite showed as a result but there was not much information on it.

Evaluate the article
- The article has a concise introductory sentence which describes the stone.

- A brief description of the sections of the article is present.

- The lead includes information that is not present in the article. In fact, the lead contains most of the information.

- The price of the stone needs a reference.

- The lead is overly detailed, the information could have been distributed better.

- The content of the article is relevant to the topic, however, it is not fully up to date. There was more reliable information available.

- A lot of information is missing. The article only describes the discovery and formation of painite.

- Although it is from a neutral point of view, the article uses words such as 'very' and 'extremely small' which does not quantify anything.

- The article cites some unreliable sources, such as random or expired websites. Not all of the links work.

- The article is written clearly and organized, with minor grammatical errors. There is a lack of sections and general information, as there is only one main section.

- The images are detailed and well-captioned in an eye-catching way.

- In the talk section, readers are questioning the reliability of the sources and lack of evidence.

- The article is rated start-class, low importance.

- Learning about minerals in class is different as we are provided with clear and validated knowledge.

- The general status of the article is poor, poorly developed and underdeveloped. It could be improved by containing more information on the stone and using reliable sources.