User:XXryoul/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Salt Bridge article.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because my first impression was to look at the reference lists which only has a single source citation. The article also cited only once in the introduction paragraph and none in the other section.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Yes, all sections in the article is relevant to the topic. The article could add about the limitations, maintanance of salt bridge over time, and explain more on types of salt bridges. The article underrepresent historical marginalized populations as there is no sections about it. Some improvements are to add more citation, add relevant infomations such as limitations and maintance needed.

The article is in neutral tone and no biased on the claims. The viewpoints are underrepresented as there is not anough citation.

The citation does not work easily. I cannot open the source and it is only accessible to Universities in Australia. No, only the introduction is referenced reliably. Most of the facts are unreliable as there are no reference. I cannot check where the information comes from because I cannot open the link and no citation on other information.

There are some biased opinion who based on their experiences in universities. The tone of conversing is also unpleasant. This article is rated as a C-class with mid-importance scale.