User:SpaceCat13/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: Chemistry and Camera complex
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. The ChemCam instrument aboard the Curiosity rover has made many measurements since the rover landed. I was curious to see if the information on this particular page was up to date with the mission.

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?

The lead sentence and paragraph are coherent and concise. They provide a succinct summary the instrument and its key components as well as their scientific purpose. The lead does not include a description of the major sections of the article because the only other sections are "overview," "images," and "see also." The lead could include a sentence summarizing the other major sections if the sections were up-to-date and fleshed out. The lead includes information about ChemCam's components that is not present in the bulk of the article. The lead is concise and conveys important and pertinent information.

Lead evaluation
The lead coneys important information about its subject. It could be strengthened by improving and expanding on much of the remainder of the article.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Most of the content is relevant to the topic but not up-to-date. The article reads like the rover just landed and most of the information provided does not mention the many discoveries made with ChemCam. None of the content seems to be incorrect or in the wrong place. The overview does provide additional information to the lead paragraph and there are many images that provide a visual explanation into how the instrument works.

Content evaluation
The content of this article is informative and on topic but has not been updated with recent scientific findings by ChemCam since 2013.

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?

The article is presented in a neutral, unbiased manner stating facts about the spacecraft instrument. The article does not appear to leave out important information to promote a certain argument. The article contains mostly facts about the capabilities of the instrument so that no viewpoint is dominating the tone. The article does not try to persuade the reader and focuses on presenting factual statements.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is appropriate for a scientific and Wikipedia article. It clearly states facts and doesn't try to sway the reader's perspective.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

The article had 9 references. The sources are primarily JPL mission updates and reports. There is one LPSC abstract from 2006 included. None of the references cite from scientific journals. There is more in the literature now about ChemCam, its capabilities, and its scientific findings than when this article was last updated. The sources need to include more peer-reviewed scientific journals and up-to-date information. The links all work.

Sources and references evaluation
There is a surprising number of sources for such a short article, but upon further inspection, the references mainly include mission updates and not peer-reviewed material.

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?

The article is concise to a fault. It is too short to have an 'overview' section, but that is the only other paragraph included besides the lead. The article is easy for a scientist in this field to read, but may be difficult for someone without a familiarity with ChemCam to read and comprehend. The grammar in the article is correct and presents information efficiently.

Organization evaluation
Structurally and organizationally, this article is okay. It lacks the text and information needed to determine organization.

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?

The article includes several images that begin to help the reader's understanding, but it could use more with more explanation. It includes several images of spectra and rocks. Depending on the reader's understanding of spectrometry, they may have a difficult time understanding what the images are trying to depict. I'm not sure how to tell if the images are adhering to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, but all the images appear to be in the public domain from JPL/NASA. The images are not laid out in an appealing way. They are all lumped together in an 'images' section. The images should support the facts stated about ChemCam as the article proceeds.

Images and media evaluation
The article has a surprising number of images for its length, but the images are not organized well and may not be helpful to an unfamiliar reader.

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?

There is a lack of conversations occurring on the Talk page, The last comment was from February 2015, and there are only two entries total. The article is a part of the WikiProject Spaceflight. The article has been rated as a 'C' and not yet been reviewed for a 'B' status. It has been marked as low-importance and it needs and infobox.

Talk page evaluation
Like with most aspects of this article, the Talk page is also lacking. The article is marked as 'low-importance' by the particular WikiProject but would still be beneficial to update for the general public to understand how compositions of rocks are found on Mars with the Curiosity rover.

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?

The article is a good start on the topic but does not have sufficient information that is up-to-date on ChemCam. The lead is probably the strongest part of the article. The overall article could be improved with more information presented in an approachable way. It could also use more references and better visualizations. The in an underdeveloped article.

Overall evaluation
This is article is a good start to understanding the ChemCam instrument aboard the Curiosity rover on Mars, but it need more information, up-to-date findings, peer-reviewed references, and better visualizations to be truly helpful and informative to general audiences.

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: Talk:Chemistry and Camera complex