User:Ytsang2499/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: (link)
 * Chromatography
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * It was an interesting technique to use when doing experiments in the biochemistry lab and because I've only known a little about the technique, it would be nice to learn more about it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it states the topic and the definition of what we're looking at.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It doesn't mention all of the main topics. Rather, it briefly explains how chromatography works and mentions how there are 2 types of chromatography but doesn't go into a lot of details (which made sense because there were many types of chromatography).
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, everything seems to be topic related.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It's pretty concise, briefly explaining the general basics of chromatography without going into detail of each one.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it gives an overview of the definitions relevant to chromatography and a summary of how each type of chromatography works.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * It seems pretty up to date, with the last edit being November 1, 2020 and chromatography is a technique that's been used for a while now, since it should be relevant.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think that it briefly explains each type of chromatography without too many details (but has links attached to give more details on the topic), so everything belongs to the topic and it doesn't seem like there's content missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Well, this is more science based, so it doesn't address topics related to underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, it's neutral because this article is more facts based, rather than arguing for anything.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Again, it's information based on a science technique, so there's not anything that's biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Not really, there are some techniques that are less explained than others, but it does give links for further information, so nothing's really under or overrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * It does states some advantages of using some of the techniques, but there's no pushing the reader into using one technique over another.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, there are citations for each types of chromatography that they state, and more than one source, so it should be pretty reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, there are easy sources from different websites as well as textbook sources, which are more reliable because it's for educational purposes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * There are sources from 1970s as well as sources that are much more current (in the past 10 years or so).
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the sources are very diverse and they also include some of the individuals that developed the chromatography techniques.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the sources work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is well written, going into the definitions to make it easier to understand, then it dives right into the techniques, not giving a page full of details, but briefly explain how each technique works and what it's used for.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * It doesn't seem to have any spelling or grammatical errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, it starts out with a small summary of the history behind the technique, then it separates the article based on the types of techniques available in chromatography.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There aren't many images in the article. There were some, but I think it would have been better if they added in images that shows the actual technique (i.e. column chromatography) because most of them just has a short explanation without images to help understand how it actually works.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * For the images available, yes, it gives a title to allow the reader to know what the image is for, but because the images were nothing of full details, there' s not really a caption or description explaining the image.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * It should follow the copyright regulations because I tried to click into several images, and they all said it's "own work", so I'm assuming that those are images that they took on their own. For an image of a machine that they didn't get on their own, they did cite from what facility was that image from.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Not really. The images are relevant to the topic, but it's pretty random as of location. For example, in the first paragraph explaining chromatography, there is an image of thin layer chromatography and it doesn't really make sense of why the editor would put it there and why they put that particular chromatography type when they didn't include other types.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I think the article is overall pretty good. Even though the images aren't really helpful, the explanation for each type of chromatography is still pretty concise and useful. It would be nice if they added in more images to help enhance the reader's understanding of the topic, but overall, the writing was still pretty good.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The explanations of each type of chromatography is good, being short but straight forward. It also included definitions in the beginning of the article so the reader would know what parts of the technique are (e.g. immobilized phase, etc.). For parts that they didn't include a lot of information, they provided links to let the reader get access to more information about that particular section.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More images just to show how overall techniques work would be nice.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It's complete and well developed if writing is all that we're looking at because it explains the technique well, and for parts it doesn't explain, it provides supplement information so the reader could have access to more information if they needed it.

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: