User:Yaatch/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Volcanism on the Moon

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Planetary Geology is my main area of research. Because of this I feel comfortable in evaluating content related to this topic.

Evaluate the article
In general, the article contains several sections that summarize the topic relatively well. The lead section provides a concise and informative overview on lunar volcanism. The main volcanic landforms are introduced and the authors briefly comment on the volcanic history of the Moon. However, the lead section does not contain any citations regarding the information in it. Furthermore, although the geologic history of the Moon's volcanism is discussed in the lead section, the hypotheses to explain it are not discussed in other sections.

As for the content, most of the sections are succinct descriptions of the relevant topics. However, the section "Early Impressions" overly focuses on Western thinkers and scientists, without including mentions to researchers from outside of this center. On the one hand, the article contains several images that help understand the objects and concepts discussed. On the other hand, some diagrams can be added to illustrate some of the volcanic landforms described (lava domes, cones, rilles), as the text excessively relies on text to explain visual features. As mentioned before, a separate section for describing the overall interpretations for the history of volcanism on the Moon is lacking. The content seems slightly dated in the sense that it does not include the most recent results from the Chang'e-5 mission and some publications related to it (e.g., ).

The tone and balance of the article seem adequate for Wikipedia's standards. There is no visible persuasive bias, but to make it more balanced one could include more diverse perspectives from different civilizations and thinkers on the section "Early Impressions", as mentioned before.

The sources included are mostly from scientific journals, but significant portions of some sections are lacking citations (e.g., the Lead Section). Also, some of the sources are not primary, i.e. the authors rely on certain newspaper's texts to summarize scientific research (e.g., ). Going to primary sources would be more reliable and make the Wikipedia article more robust. Most links are working, but some are broken (ex. ""Gruitheisen Domes". Volcano World. Oregon State University").

Furthermore, the talk page of the article is not active, but the editing history shows consistent and active participation of a few editors during the past few years.

Overall, the article "Volcanism on the Moon" has a good structure and covers relevant topics related to volcanism on the Moon. However, there is room for improvement, especially regarding the citations for the lead section, the inclusion of up-to-date content in the text, the use of primary sources instead of newspaper articles and the expansion of the "Early Impressions" section. Furthermore, diagrams summarizing the volcanic landforms should be added, as well as a section regarding the hypotheses explaining the Moon's volcanic history.