User:SMMC2002/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Excitation-transfer theory

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I feel it is a topic I can build-out to create a more effective and credible Wikipedia page (as this is the article I am currently working with for the final Wikipedia article edit assignment).

Lead section
Although the lead does go over what this theory is, I do not feel it is written in the most colloquial terms (meaning that a reader would not be able to briefly review the content to get an understanding of what the theory is about). There is an example included in the middle of the definition of the theory, which I did find to be out-of-place and disrupts the flow of the lead.

Content
The content provided is relevant to the topic and does seem to be up-to-date. However, there is not much content to read through, as the only available sections are the lead and historical section (more content is provided within these section that does have the ability to be built out and put into other sections with relevant headings).

Tone and Balance
The language used in the article is neutral, as none of the claims made appear to be bias or lack appropriate citations. With the topic of the article being Excitation-Transfer Theory, there is not much room for persuasion in terms of the author(s) wanting the reader to believe one component over another.

Sources and References
Each of the sources used do appear to come from scholarly peer-reviewed articles and books. However, the most recent article cited is from 2006, meaning the research is not as up-to-date as it should be. All of the claims made in the article are sourced to one of the many citations at the bottom of the page. However, most of the articles come from the same sources (meaning they do lack diversity in terms of authors). There is only one link available to click on, and that one did have some trouble opening up to be viewed. Given that this theory was discussed in one of the module for this course, I do know that there is more research articles that can be used as sources for the topic. A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Organization and writing quality
I do think the writing is professional in the sense that there are no grammatical or spelling errors (at least, none that I found when reading the article). With that said, I do not think it is written as clearly as it should be, given that Wikipedia pages are meant to be easy understandable to users with no prior knowledge on the subject matter. As I mentioned, there are only two sections within the entire article. This signifies that there is not enough organization of the content (and not enough content to read through), which would make it difficult for any reader to understand.

Images and Media
There are no images included in the article. However, I think incorporating images may be something to consider as I am editing the article for my final project.

Talk page discussion
There is currently no talk page for this article.

Overall impressions
Overall, I do think that is is safe to say this article does need a lot of work in order for it to be an effective page users can get information from (which was the main reason I chose this article to edit for my assignment). The strengths of the article is that the information provided is credibly sourced (even though most of the sources are the same). There are many ways this article can be improve; the main way being to add more updated information on the theory that can make it easier for a reader to understand.