User:Sarahoster/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: Shock Wave
 * This article needs more citations as indicated by the message at the top.

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
Although the introductory paragraph is clear, the second paragraph is vague and need further explanation. In the second paragraph, the topic of the Prandtl–Meyer expansion fan is only mentioned in the lead and not in any other sections. To make the lead more concise this paragraph could be cut. There are no descriptions of the major sections, just the Contents section.

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
The section on Memristors seems too brief and unrelated to the main topic. Memristors deals with nonlinear electromagnetic waves, whereas the article deals with sound waves. The most recent source for the information comes from 2014. However, the majority of the sources are from the 1970s. Although most of the general sections don't need much updating, it might be good to check recent sources and see how the article compares.

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 tone is generally neutral. There don't appear to be any specific viewpoints, just general information sharing.

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
Many of the sections are lacking credible sources. For example, the last section has no specific citations for the two problems in practice as well as for the influences of shock waves. The Technological applications sections also appear to have no sources directly cited on the page. There are certainly more sources that could be added to the article. The links that are available appear to be working correctly, but if the articles that don't have links could have links added, that would improve the page.

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
The article is easy enough to read, but could still use some improvements. There are several sections that only include a sentence or two. While this may be considered concise, I feel it makes the sections less clear. The overall organization is fine, but there are times when a single topic is mentioned in multiple sections that could cause confusion. For example, bow waves are both other shocks as well as phenomena types which is a little misleading.

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
The images add well to the content of the page and are placed in the article near what they are referring to. The trinity explosion picture could use more explanation in the caption in order to point out more clearly where the shock is happening in the image.

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
There are conversations about the image with the fire on the ship talking about the shock wave in the water. There is also discussion on the electromagnetic wave section. The article is rated as a B-Class and Mid-Importance. The article is part of WikiProjects Physics. Wikipedia discusses the topic of shock waves in a more general, applied sense than has been discussed in my classes.

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 article needs improvements. The article is good at being concise and giving a good general overview of the subject. There are sections, however, that don't seem to fit with the overall theme or that need more explaining. Overall, most sections need more sources. The article is underdeveloped.

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: