User:SummJ9385/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.


 * Metalworking: Metalworking
 * The Metalworking article is interesting to me because it directly relates to my major and encompasses a lot of the processes that are used to generate ferrous and non-ferrous materials of varying compositions and strengths. The article is currently a C-class article which has sections that are uncited, source links are broken or seem to be from unreliable sources and the talk page has a range of questions that are unrelated to the overall tone and purpose of the article.

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?

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

The article's overall structure is appropriate in this article. The biggest issues are a lack of content and a lack of reliable sources to back up the information that is being represented.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

The content is relatively up-to-date but I would like examine the history section due to a lack of sources for that section specifically. I think that a comprehensive history of Metalworking could be supported with multiple sources from relevant sources through the MST library as well as potential for sources that I have from classes. Metallurgy is interesting when evaluating what is up-to-date and what is not due to the industry being relatively unchanging for the past 100 years. However, through research and content consensus at companies or professionals/professors the content could be deemed up-to-date or not up-to-date, case to case.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

In terms of straight up missing content, I would need to do slightly more research to see if I stumbled upon a heading that is not represented here. They do mention "Burnishing" as a Bulk Forming process with only one source which leads to a website where the process is explained in one sentence by a manufacturer, therefore not reliable or backed up enough. I would like to examine that particular process to provide more clarity to the overall lists of the processes of metalworking.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?

The article is neutral, while reading through the different sections about joining, cutting and associated processes, it is very clear that these topics are being discussed in a factual manner.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The content of this article does not have any heavy bias towards any specific position. My only concern is that the facts that are being represented in this article could be from sources that embellish facts or statistics in order to make their company look better.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Half of the links do not work and the one source that seems reliable "Cutting Tool Applications" by American Machinist seems to be suspect and does not provide a deep enough pool of secondary source information for me to feel that the article has proper support to be reliable and accurate.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

They do not. They are not representative and a lot are not taken from reputable literature at all.


 * Are the sources current?

The links are relatively current. Finding historical sources for metalworking as a science could be older so I qualify articles from the mid-1960s and 70s to be reputable enough for the given topic.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

For this article the links either do not work or link to articles that appear to have relatively high bias or do not seem reputable enough to create an article based on.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

My only complaint in terms of the writing style of this article is that it is paraphrased to a point where the article seems unprofessional and unreliable. The bullet lists that are included in each heading seem to be more like a high school presentation of the facts and ideas rather than a comprehensive list of metalworking techniques for informative purposes.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Most of the headings are not organized with full sentences, instead they are replaced by bullet lists with strange formatting, however there are no spelling errors that I saw so at least spellcheck is working.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

I would say that overall this article is broken down into sections that make sense and do a good job of relaying all the important sections of metalworking. That was clear from the content section of the beginning of the article. The issues that I have are the ways that the topics are represented in the individual sections.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

While it is nice that both men and women are represented in metalworking I feel that the two images in a row in this article are pretty much the same and do not add anything to the topic. The one with a woman working a lathe could be kept but it should be enlarged and have a larger description and its location in the article could be changed to have it correlate with the section about lathing.


 * Are images well-captioned?

As I hit on slightly above I feel that the captions could be expanded upon to add more


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?

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?

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: