User talk:Jachar520/Evaluate an Article

The article that I am going to be reviewing is an article on Experimentum Crucis. The link is Experimentum_crucis.

After reviewing the article, I found that some of the examples used in the article were not necessarily incorrect, but maybe not the correct choices. It leads me to an interesting thought about how one can deem something an "experimentum crucis". To me I guess that seems rather opinionated to a certain degree. I noticed as well that when some examples were listed, some of them were elaborated on in a much larger degree than some of the others in the article. I feel as though the experiments that produced some laws and principles that we still use today such as, the experiments done by Robert Hooke and Isaac Newton should receive a little more explanation due to the relevance of their experiments in the world today. Some of the examples listed are also not really experiments. It seems like some previous authors might have deemed some important discoveries experimentum crucis. It also might be a little too early to include 21st century experiments into this article because the results have not been around long enough to have had a substantial impact in the scientific world. I do feel as though the article holds a neutral point of view throughout its entirety. Again, I would like to see some of the more notorious experiments elaborated on more than they are. All of the links that I checked work correctly and they do not link to the same courses. The article is a part of WikiProject Science. This article does not differ from the what we talked about in class in terms of content. The article just showed that experimentum crucis is used for a lot of different experiments vs only Isaac Newton. Jachar520 (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The article that I am going to be reviewing is an article on Experimentum Crucis. The link is Experimentum_crucis.

After reviewing the article, I found that some of the examples used in the article were not necessarily incorrect, but maybe not the correct choices. It leads me to an interesting thought about how one can deem something an "experimentum crucis". To me I guess that seems rather opinionated to a certain degree. I noticed as well that when some examples were listed, some of them were elaborated on in a much larger degree than some of the others in the article. I feel as though the experiments that produced some laws and principles that we still use today such as, the experiments done by Robert Hooke and Isaac Newton should receive a little more explanation due to the relevance of their experiments in the world today. Some of the examples listed are also not really experiments. It seems like some previous authors might have deemed some important discoveries experimentum crucis. It also might be a little too early to include 21st century experiments into this article because the results have not been around long enough to have had a substantial impact in the scientific world. I do feel as though the article holds a neutral point of view throughout its entirety. Again, I would like to see some of the more notorious experiments elaborated on more than they are. All of the links that I checked work correctly and they do not link to the same courses. The article is a part of WikiProject Science. This article does not differ from the what we talked about in class in terms of content. The article just showed that experimentum crucis is used for a lot of different experiments vs only Isaac Newton.Jachar520 (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)