User:MH082002/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
Sources and ReferencesA Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I found this article through the Women Scientists WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists/Worklist). As a female chemist, I wanted to evaluate an article of personal interest to me. Also, as we discussed during class, the gender gap in Wikipedia editors largely contributes to the lack of thorough articles on female writers, scientists, doctors, etc., and I wanted to investigate that firsthand.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead section
The lead section clearly describes Professor Beletskaya's area of research, current professional appointment, and most well-known contributions. However, it includes information about her work in aromatic reactions, carbanion reactivity, Pd and Ni catalysis, and organolanthanides which is neither cited nor described later in the article.
Content
The content of the article is relevant to the topic, but it is not up-to-date. The article lacks a description of the subject's more recent work and awards. In addition to the more recent content that is missing, the "Academic career" section lacks more detailed content about the author's work during the periods when she was an undergraduate and a Candidate of Chemistry. Additionally, the article describes that she researched and contributed to certain fields, but lacks specificity regarding the impactful research she performed (for example, "reaction mechanisms of organometallic compounds" and "electrophilic reactions" are both extremely broad topics in chemistry that are not descriptive of the nature of the subject's work).Tone and Balance
This article is neutral, and there do not seem to be any issues with the tone. The statements made are not argumentative or heavily biased.
Sources and References
Not all of the facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source. Some of the claims are also backed up by another reference in the article but not attributed. For example, the last sentence of the lead section has information described in the first citation in the reference but is not demarcated as such. Additionally, one of the sources cited is a scientific review paper titled "Supramolecular Chemistry of Metalloporphyrins," but it does not at all back up the claim that it is linked to (describing the author's professorship).
Organization and writing quality
The article could be more effectively organized. Splitting up the academic background section from the subject's main scientific contributions would make this article much clearer, since it separates the subject's professional appointments and personal background from the content of her research. Additionally, there are several grammar mistakes in the article, such as punctuation and pronoun-antecedent errors. There are also several cases where the wording makes the facts stated unclear and hard to understand.
Images and Media
Images are used appropriately in this article. A picture of the subject is included, and no extraneous media have been added.
Talk page discussion
There is very little discussion on the Talk page/revision history for this article. It is included under the WikiProject for Women Scientists, which is focused on highlighting and rectifying the lack of coverage on female scientists in Wikipedia. The WikiProject has indicated that this article needs to be expanded and/or improved.
Overall impressions
My impression of this article is that it is not complete and therefore underdeveloped. It lacks more recent sources that reflect new developments about the subject, and while the general content is relevant, the organization could be significantly improved. More detailed information should also be added to provide more context and nuance to the statements in the article.