User:Andrea.ns1005/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article
[edit]This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: Diffusion
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
I chose this article because it is talks about diffusion, a topic that has been brought up many times throughout my undergraduate and graduate classes that deal with heat and mass transport. Also, this article is considered class C, which means that it needs to be improved.
Lead
[edit]- Guiding questions
The lead includes a short and clear introductory sentence that describes the article's topic. The lead, however, does not include a brief description of the article's major sections. Instead, the lead is composed of different paragraphs/ sentences that do not flow. For example, after explaining what a gradient means and providing examples of different gradients such as pressure gradients, another paragraph composed of just one sentence mentions that diffusion comes from the Latin word diffundere. The Lead should be better organized and have a better flow.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Lead evaluation
[edit]Content
[edit]- Guiding questions
Most of the content present in the article is relevant to the topic. The section that talks about the difference between diffusion vs. bulk flow has an example about the lungs that is rather confusing and not presented in a concise and clear manner. Throughout the article there seems to be missing references. In the History of diffusion in physics section, for example, the first couple of sentences are missing a reference. Where did they get that information from?
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Is the content up-to-date?
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Content evaluation
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]- Guiding questions
The article is neutral. Viewpoints in the article are present in equal amounts and there is no persuasion towards a certain position.
- Is the article neutral?
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]- Guiding questions
The article seems to be missing references in a number of paragraphs. Links present in the article are working.
- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Are the sources current?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Organization
[edit]- Guiding questions
There are a number of run-on sentences, making it less concise and clear to read. I caught a few grammatical and spelling errors in the article. The article has sections that do reflect the major points of diffusion. The content inside each section, however, needs improvement. Also, I would place the history of diffusion as one of the first sections. It would be better to first learn where diffusion came from and its history. It's usually better to learn how our understanding of this phenomena has evolved over time.
- Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
Organization evaluation
[edit]Images and Media
[edit]- Guiding questions
The article does contain images and a short video that help understand the topic. The images and videos are well captioned.
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Are images well-captioned?
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
Images and media evaluation
[edit]Checking the talk page
[edit]- Guiding questions
The project is part of the WikiProjects Physics and is rated a C-Class and high importance. In the talk page, they were mentioning how it would be better to maintain a less technical explanation so that it is easier for the general audience to understand the topic.
- 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?
Talk page evaluation
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]- Guiding questions
There is lots of room for improvement, especially in the lead section. The section that includes basic models of diffusion is well written and goes beyond describing only Fick's Law.
- What is the article's overall status?
- What are the article's strengths?
- How can the article be improved?
- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
Overall evaluation
[edit]Optional activity
[edit]- 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 — ~~~~