User:Srlg36/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Ludwig Prandtl

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I was surprised that it was listed in the C-class category of articles. As I have used Prandtl's number and the Prandtl-Meyer equations extensively in my coursework, I was surprised that the article wasn't as fully fleshed out as some other scientist's Wikipedia pages that have been credited with significant equations and/or concepts. I believe that this article is important because these equations and concepts that Prandtl has been credited with are significant and, therefore, he deserves to have a fleshed out article about him. My initial impression of the article is that it seems lacking in the lead section and the early life section but has a pretty fleshed out later years section at first glance.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * I think that it mostly does. The bulk of the article is about his later years, and that is described in the lead. The other sections aren't really described much in the lead.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * Actually it does, it mentions that Prandtl's number is named after him but it isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. All of the other information in the lead is discussed further in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise, possibly a bit too concise.
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes. Not much of it is incredibly recent, but not much has come out regarding the topic in recent years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There isn't anything specifically about Prandtl's number other than stating it was named after him. It isn't described anywhere why that is. I don't believe that anything in the article doesn't belong.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I don't think so.
 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I would say there is one claim that might be slightly biased. There are strong claims regarding Prandtl's involvement and opinion on the Third Reich, but there is only one listed source on the subject. A strong claim like that, which goes as far as to quote him supporting the Nazis, should probably be more strongly sourced. There may not be more sources on the topic, though, and in that case it may not be biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * I don't think this applies to this article, as there isn't really any viewpoints that are minority or fringe.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No
 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Most of them are. There are a few claims about how Prandtl strongly affected the scientific community with different discoveries he made, but there isn't a specific source to verify that. It is true that his discoveries must have been significant for him to have so many students that followed his work and for his equations and concepts to still be used today. There is also only one source to back up his involvement with the Third Reich
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I believe so
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Not especially, most of the sources are men in academia. In fact, there are two sources listed by the same author who is a German physicist. One of the sources is also credited to Joanna Vogel-Prandtl who wrote a biography of Prandtl. Upon further investigation to find out of they were related, no information could be found about Vogel-Prandtl.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * I don't think so, most of the sources originate in academia (aside from his biography, which I can't find much info on other than the PDF linked on the Wikipedia page).
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes
 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * It has one: "Prandtl showed that an elliptical spanwise lift distribution the most efficient, giving the minimum induced drag for the given span."
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, but I think some more technically focused images would be beneficial
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are a few conversations happening. One discussion is on his involvement with the Third Reich and how verifiable the information presented on that topic is, as that is a strong claim to make about an individual and needs to be backed up well. There is also a discussion regarding that he possibly could've been the first to build a wind tunnel.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * C-class, it is in 4 WikiProjects. Two are c-lass, high important projects and two are start-class.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We haven't discussed this topic specifically in class.
 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It is classified as a level 5 vital article and has been rated as start-class by WikiProject Vital Articles.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * His later years are pretty well fleshed out and have a good amount of verifiable information.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * I think more information in the sections aside from the later years would be beneficial, as would explaining more of what he did specifically. There are several instances of "he performed some investigations/experiments and was successful" but not specifying what the experiment or investigation was and not explaining what was successful about it.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think that is over all a bit underdeveloped, as it is lacking in some in depth information in the sections aside from the later years section. The later years section is well developed, though.