User:Nookular/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Nuclear weapons testing

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
The topic is very interesting to me and relates to the course. It is also a general topic that is sometimes misunderstood because people do not understand what it entails and how rare nuclear tests are outside of North Korea.

Evaluate the article
This article has an introduction that effectively and concisely explains what nuclear tests are as well as how they have been used and provides some information about their conclusion. It introduces each section of the article, but is missing citations for some of its information. I know that information to be true, however it is not cited, such as the kiloton yields of the trinity test and subsequent information about the yields of nuclear tests.

The article presents relevant, up to date information about nuclear testing. It is well weighted, giving appropriate information to each section without one being favored over the others. I do not feel that this article addresses an equity gap or is an underrepresented topic.

The viewpoints expressed in this article seem neutral and are not overly speculative. I mentioned some citations missing in my opinion, though. A claim is made about how tests are often used to show nuclear might, but this is not cited. I feel that this would be more appropriate if it was cited.

See above for an evaluation of sources. The links in this article are appropriate and work.

The writing in this article is appropriate and helpful for people to learn.

The images and tables and figures are very helpful and educational.

The talk page is mostly old discussions, with many from 2005 and 2013. There are a lot of questions about things to add to the article, such as an inquiry about a specific topic that this page does not cover; a link to this page was provided in a different page and the context in the different page did not exist here about dry nuclear testing.

The article is part of three wikiprijects in the C class, with one being of high importance.

The article is very good overall. It provides helpful, informative information while for the most part avoiding excessive speculation and keeping a neutral tone when handling un-cited information. The best improvement that could be made is including more citations for information, because having to trust the numbers of an uncited source does not have the credibility of a cited source after a figure or fact.