User:Tmaraghe/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: (Mass diffusivity)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * In my graduate level classes we have spent a significant amount of time evaluating what the coefficient of diffusivity is and how it changes based on both molecular and turbulent flows.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 1) The lead sentence describes the article topic of molecular diffusivity. The articles topic however is mass diffusivity which seems to me also includes turbulent diffusivity, which is itself another topic.
 * 2) The lead does not include reference to the different types of molecular diffusivity referenced throughout the article. There is a table of contents however which does the job in my opinion.
 * 3) No the lead doesn't reference too much information, and it appears to sufficiently cover the subject in the following text.
 * 4) The lead could be more concise in that it references facts that are covered elsewhere in the article. It does not appear to be totally necessary in the lead for the article such as example Diffusivity numbers covered elsewhere.


 * 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
 * Yes, the article discusses molecular diffusion in several different aspects with examples included. Additionally included are molecular diffusion of different states of matter (solid, liquid, gas).
 * The content appears to have been in 2014 with regular updates and reviews until November of 2019. In general the topic appears up to date but I have not done any deep dive into the literature to see what may be added.
 * No, the content appears to be generally thorough. However reference to turbulent diffusivity or overall diffusivity coefficient is somewhat lacking and does not give a general view of what the value means in the big picture scheme.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * Yes, the article deals with a topic that is not controversial.
 * No, facts and other laws are forthright and reference credible academic sources.
 * The different diffusivity types could have more information and are very bare bones. Especially when it comes to population dynamics.
 * No, the article is to the point and neutral.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * There does not appear to be literature cited for all the equations referenced in the article.
 * the sources that are there are reflective of the topic.
 * The sources themselves are quite old, but the realm of molecular diffusivity does not appear to have changed significantly in the past 10 years.
 * Links do not work for cited material. It has either been moved or deleted.


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * Article is very concise, but may be bare bones to a fault.
 * Grammar appears to not be an issue in the referenced paper.
 * Yes, the topics listed in the table of contents are well broken down into sections.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * No images are included in the text.
 * Images are not included in the topic.
 * Images are not included in the topic.
 * Images are not included in the topic.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 1) There was past conversation about units being incorrect in some cases. These chats happened in 2008, and changed the title to mass diffusivity. Thought was given to molecular diffusivity but was decided against.
 * 2) No it does not appear to be a WikiProject, but along with turbulent diffusivity appears to be lacking in content.
 * 3) Wikipedia discusses the topic purely from a chemistry perspective in general, with lacking reference to a physical meaning of physical traits such as how diffusivity can vary in space.


 * 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


 * 1) The overal status does not appear marked as in need of review, but I believe additional information from another discipline could strengthen the article.
 * 2) The article is brief, succinct, and to the point. The page is easy to navigate.
 * 3) The article in my opinion could go with a title that makes more sense to the topic under discussion. Mass diffusion is not a term I have seen before, maybe it is referred to such in chemistry but additional mention of either particle diffusivity or molecular diffusivity would add more scope.
 * 4) The articles substance is generally there, but more information would help give overarching completeness. General writing is in the spirit of an encyclopedia and generally well written.


 * 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: