User:Rumbling Octopus/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: Optical mineralogy
 * A topic of interest I enjoy in which I could be considered at least somewhat knowledgeable. The article seems to be mostly complete, linking to a few more niche articles that are less complete. Ideally either this article or another closely related sub-topic related to it will be a good candidate for my wiki project.

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
Yes, the article features a small paragraph at the beginning outlining the topics of the article including a brief summary. I think the lead does a good job of briefly introducing each topic without providing the reader with so much information as to be confusing. There is a list of both mineral properties as well as techniques used in optical mineralogy, which I think could do with separation into separate lists of techniques and properties to more clearly outline differences between the two. The lead doesn't seem to include information that isn't present in the article, but the lead is a very general overview of the topic to begin with and might be better off delivering a bit more information.

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
All of the articles content is related to the topic. While I may not be terribly interested by the history of optical mineralogy for example, it is undeniably relevant. The article is not entirely up to date, and makes note of that fact at the top of the article with a note from January of 2011.

In terms of content that is missing I see a few opportunities where further development of the ideas presented in the article would be beneficial. For example in the "Characteristics of minerals" section it would be nice to have subtopics discussing each of the most useful characteristic properties used in optical mineralogy. This section would also benefit greatly from including more images to illustrate what the properties look like. After all they are optical properties. Mostly I just wish some of the topics were better organized within themselves instead of feeling blocky.

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 remains neutral throughout. It's somewhat difficult for an article about a technical aspect of mineralogy to be noticeably biased, perhaps in the sections related to the history but I don't know enough about it to evaluate the contents validity. The article doesn't seem to try to persuade the reader of anything, and honestly I don't know what it would try to persuade you of.

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
Only two sources are made use of throughout the entire article (far too few). one is from 2017, the other is an encyclopaedia Britannica edition from 1910-11 (pretty old). While there haven't been tremendous leaps and bounds in the field of optical mineralogy in the past hundred years I'm positive more recent sources exist. A wider variety of sources would also be nice to better reflect the body of work related to optical mineralogy, especially since some of the sources are somewhat general themselves. Many links to other wiki articles can be found throughout and work with a few linking pages that don't exist. Both the sources links work.

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
Some of the topics within the article could do with an organizational overhaul to make for easier reading. I didn't notice any glaring grammatical or spelling errors.

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
Only complaints I have about images is that there should be more of them. Where they are used, they are used effectively and correctly. Only 3 can be found throughout the entire article though, and in a largely visual based topic I would expect more to be made use of. The two pictures of thin sections have highly detailed descriptions if you click on them.

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
From what I can tell there's very little activity on the talk page. The last edit was in September of 2015, so clearly hasn't been a lot of recent activity. It's part of the C-class geology related articles and is interest to the following wiki-projects. Wikiproject Geology (C-class mid importance), Wikiproject Physics (C-class low importance), and Wikiproject Rocks and Minerals (C-class high importance).

Neither us or the wiki community have talked about this, and I realize it doesn't necessarily explicitly fit the criteria for the project description. However, I think that a section about the applications and benefits of optical mineralogy, even historically and what techniques have replaced them, would add value to the article and be a worthwhile contribution to the wiki community. (I'll have to discuss this with someone later and see if a different topic would be better).

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 articles overall status is C-class with a range of importance in a few different Wikiprojects. The article could be improved with some organizational changes and fleshing out of some of the ideas. Overall I would say the article has a strong base but is somewhat under developed.

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: