User:AreHc/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?

(Provide a link to the article here.) Alchemy and chemistry in the medieval Islamic world#cite note-9

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I was interested in learning more about medieval alchemy, how It was practiced, and how it was received by the pubic at the time. Also because it is interesting to see how different or similar it is to what we know now. My preliminary impression that it was only "turning lead into gold", but its way more in-depth than that. It matters because its a window into where these sciences first started and how they lead up to what we know of them today.

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

This article needs to capitalize the words, "chemistry", "medieval", and "world" in the article title. Some of the section titles also need some words capitalized.

This article explains a great deal about the theory and relationship with the western sciences but it doesn't go into that much detail about the actual practices of alchemy and chemistry and how they discovered these subjects. This content gap could be closed if the author(s) talked more about these processes. Questions that could be answered are, "Where and who was alchemy most practiced by?", "What was the most/least popular process of these sciences?", " What timeline could be laid out about these practices and theories from known beginning to end?".

In the section "Processes and equipment", the author(s) name some processes for chemical processes but none for alchemy. They also list some tools but this and the processes could use more explanation on how they were utilized in the Medieval Islamic world and how they discovered them.

Some references to Lindenberg are missing citations. Along with other quotations being uncited.

Highlights alchemists works and lists their books but does not state their importance for some of them. Could go into more detail about what significance their contributions had.

Uses quotes from Lawrence Principe and then just reexplains what he meant very closely to the quote. This happens in other parts of the article too.

The talk pages note some contradiction and usage of unreliable sources; some information might be outdated.

The formatting of the text could be better. A lot of the first section feels like a giant wall of text.

The section "Alchemical and chemical theory" could have a better visual for the "World of Forms" and explain more about it.

Many parts of the article use vague terminology.