User:Re332168/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A 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.

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? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

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?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia 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.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A 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.

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?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

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?

Images and Media

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?

Talk page discussion

The 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.

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

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?

Examples of good feedback

A 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.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

Aqua Regia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

In a recent chemistry-related Youtube video I watched, Aqua Regia was mentioned. At the time, I had searched it up and referred to the Wikipedia article to learn what it was.

Evaluate the article

The lead section does a good job of providing a quick overview of what aqua regia is. It is very concise, too much in my opinion; the sentences don't flow together well and make the paragrph feel disjointed. The first sentence identifies what aqua regia is in a way much like other Wikipedia and encyclopedia articles I have seen, and the rest of the paragraph covers information that is later elaborated on in the 'Chemistry' and 'History' subsections.

Content-wise, I believe the article is excellent. The subsections include preparation of aqua regia, applications in chemistry, the reaction and process of dissolving gold and platinum (for which aqua regia is known for), and the history of it. These sections are all relevant and the amount of information under each section is balanced. There is no apparent missing content (the history section seems lacking at first, but that little has been written about aqua regia throughout history so there just isn't much information). The article is unbiased, only stating historical facts, methods of modern usage, and demonstrating the relevant chemical equations. It was easy for me to read the article, and I did not notice any grammatical issues.

There are a few images throughout the article, most of which demonstrate the appearance of aqua regia, including at various stages of dissolving gold and platinum. As the article is short and it seems that not much is known or written about the subject, the reference list is short and the 'Talk' page only has a single comment asking if aqua regia can be prepared using different chemicals. The references all work, however many lead to old websites that may have been used in schools, but not research articles. Some of the claims about applications of aqua regia are without sources, as well as all of the chemical equations; as there's no source backing the equations, I can't trust that they are accurate.

Overall, I believe the article is well-written but it is severely lacking good sources. The article is currently listed as C-class on Wikipedia likely due to the lack of information and sources. From a quick Google search, there doesn't seem to be many research articles on the topic, but there are many websites of reliable universities and organizations discussing it that would be more up-to-date sources than the ones currently in the article. Other than updating the reference list and finding sources for the chemistry of aqua regia, I don't think much else can be improved about the article; there doesn't seem to be much information about aqua regia in the first place so the article won't be able to have much more content than what it currently has.