User:TheChemistTree/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Lead–acid battery

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I searched for an article on the section of C-class articles under the chemistry topic. This article stuck out to me as well because my senior research pertains to the chemistry of lead-acid batteries.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

I think the lead section focuses too heavily on the economics of the lead-acid battery rather than giving a balanced description including more detail of the battery's chemistry, applications, history, etc;

Content

The article seems to be correct in content, at least based upon my understanding of lead-acid batteries. I do not see that it addresses any historical underrepresentation in any way. I believe content relating to Peukert's law and the discharge characteristics of lead-acid batteries should be organized better.

Tone and Balance

The article does not appear to be biased in any particular way, it discusses the advantages and reasons for using lead-acid batteries while also addressing the hazards and environmental concerns regarding their use.

Sources and References

Overall the article seems well sourced, with most references being to academic journals, textbooks, or the Handbook of Batteries. A good portion of the content however links to the websites of companies or other potentially dubious sources. Some segments I would seek more reputable sources for (sources like lead-acid.com are questionable). Links appear to work generally.

Organization and Writing Quality

With regards to organization I believe this article could use a lot of work. The subheadings of the article vary greatly in order, with some being broad (electrochemistry, applications) and some being very specific (measuring the charge level, sulfation and desulfation). I think work needs to be done to produce a shorter list of sections, while many of these sections should either be subordinated either to an existing section or reorganized into new combined sections. For instance, I would combine the environmental concerns, explosion hazard, and corrosion problems under some broad Shortcomings or Criticisms section. The writing itself is good quality.

Images and Media

The images used in this article appear appropriate, however I would also try to include some basic graphs demonstrating the discharge behavior and other basic electrochemical data visualized in some way. I think some images are poorly captioned.

Talk Page Discussion

It's been quite some time since this article has been discussed actively (2017). Much of the conversation seems to be working out minor errors in the writing of the electrochemical equations or in word choice relating to specific technical terms in the article. It was interesting to see some criticism of the writing style on given sections as reading "like a novel" rather than as an encyclopedia page, which does seem valid for some sections. I do not see my particular concerns regarding the organization of the page addressed in the talk section after a brief scan. The article is considered C-class by Wikipedia.

Overall Impressions

Overall I think the article is technically correct, and the writing in most sections of the article is written in clear, technically correct language. I think the greatest faults of the article are in its organization. There appears to be no regard for what sections should stand independently and which should be subordinate to a subheading. I would assume individual writers added sections of personal interest to them without any concern for reorganizing or otherwise compiling the page in a coherent way.