User:Trentag0n/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating the article on the Miller-Urey experiment.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
The Miller-Urey experiment is relevant to Earth's prebiotic atmosphere, which I am creating a Wikipedia article for. The Miller-Urey experiment simulated the origin of life on early Earth from non-living chemical components. The chemical components available in the chemical origin of life and the conditions under which it would take place are determined by the prebiotic atmosphere. The Miller-Urey experiment is important because it was one of the first and most influential experiments that explored pathways for abiogenesis.

My initial impression is that the article is well done, but could use improvements.

Evaluate the article
Lead section: I think the lead section is great. It has lots of relevant links, is well cited, and succinctly describes the method of the experiment and its importance.

Content: The content is good. The article covers the method of the experiment, the chemistry behind it, other related experiments, early Earth's atmosphere. I do think there could be some expansion on the chemistry of the reaction. I also think that the reception of the experiment and its direct relation to Earth's early atmosphere conditions is missing. A connection to the origin of life on other planets may also be warranted.

Tone and balance: The tone is objective and balanced. I do not feel like the article is trying to convince me of anything specific. The section on extraterrestrial sources could use some expansion and clarity edits.

Sources and references: It is well sourced.

Organization and writing quality: The article is poorly organized. I suggest a first major section should be on the methodology of the experiment, the chemistry behind it, and the reception of the experiment. The second major suggestion should highlight related experiments and the modern view of what was found. The section on the early earth atmosphere should be in the first section and more directly related to the experiment. But, I see why the early earth atmosphere section is written this way... since an article for the prebiotic atmosphere doesn't exist yet! That's why I'll write it!

Images and media: There are two media attachments, both describing the experiment methodology. They are clear and add value to the article. The article could do with more images in subsections further in the article to aid the information on display.

Talk page discussion: There is a lot of discussion on the talk page that looks healthy. There seems to be some debate on the number of amino acids detected originally in the experiment. There is some debate on including a link to the creationism-evolution controversy which is useful to read to see how to deal with the science and religion interface in articles like this.

Overall: I think it is a good article, but could use some structural and content edits to make it more cohesive and rigorous.