User:The aerec/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: Jules Jamin
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article: I chose this article, due to the fact that I have had a lab where we used a current era version of a Jamin interferometer in our experimental setup.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Kind of, I think if we could combine a sentence or two within the lead then we would have a single sentence that fits this. However, currently the lead's introductory sentence does not quite cover the complete topic.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Only a slight description of his biography, and there may be too much detail into his biography here. No other sections are mentioned in the lead.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the lead mentions one of Jules Jamin's primary development; the interferometer. Yet, there is no mention in his biography or works on this topic. Only a link in the lead.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I would say its in between, the lead is very detailed in dates which may be fine, however the lead to me is almost completely describing exact dates and timelines which could be saved later for the biography section.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, there doesn't seem to be any information that doesn't have direct relevance to the main topic.


 * Is the content up-to-date? Somewhat, while there definitely should be more links to references in the paragraphs. On a quick look for newer references, only newer references to his works could be found. So perhaps more detail into his works / his main invention should be added.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, in his biography section. There is no mention on when and how he developed the interferometer, this is an important work of his that has no detail or mention. There is an entire reference that talks about this that can be added to his page about his development of this device.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, there seems to be no statement that contains opinion or side picking based off the first few read throughs.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, as stated in the first statement. There doesn't seem to be any sort of argument in the article. Only statement of 'facts' as based off the single reference.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Somewhat? There are definitely better references available. One of the reference links is completely broken, and needs to either be re-linked or a new reference needs to be found. The second reference is in french, so I can't comment on its reliability.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Depending on what is in the french resource, I would say no. There is quite of bit of exact dates and based on the little french I can read. The reference doesn't seem to contain exact dates or timelines that are giving in the biography section.


 * Are the sources current? The working one is, there is a broken link that needs to be redone or a new reference needs to be found.


 * Check a few links. Do they work? As stated above, a few broken links. I mentioned this in the talk section of the page.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Mostly, there are some grammatical errors that make it sometimes difficult to understand, but besides those the topics discussed are clear and concise.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, a few of both.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, but the sections are not well put together. The biography follows the timeline of his life, however it jumps around the timeline a few times instead of going from start to finish. The picture of his interferometer, is formatted poorly so it makes the works section look poorly formatted.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the self photograph is nice. However, the photograph of his interferometer is just randomly put into the page, without mention near where the photo is at, since it is only mentioned in the lead. Perhaps add a photo of the names of people on the Eiffel Tower and use that as a reference since that is not referenced anywhere.


 * Are images well-captioned? No, just names of the images, not a short description caption.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe so, based off a quick investigation I found no copyright on the two pictures.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? As stated before, no the interferometer is poorly placed.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Mostly adding references, there seemed to be a reference issue with urls that a wiki bot came and edited, but then noone fixed them. The only other comment is myself.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Wiki Biography (science and academia), Wiki Physics, start-class, low importance


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? More detailed obviously, I don't remember if we specifically talked about this physicist or not. But the details on the wiki page focus alot more than what we would cover in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Needs a great deal of work


 * What are the article's strengths? Timeline specifics, whatever source was originally used seems to have very good specific dates during this persons life


 * How can the article be improved? Formatting, additions to sections, grammar and spelling checks


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? poorly developed in terms of organization, underdeveloped in terms of information on topic

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:Jules Jamin