User:MAllison5/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

I chose this article because the Rubens' tube device is interesting to me.

Lead

The introductory sentence is simple and concise. It explains what the Ruben's tube device is and what it does. The rest of the lead is also concise, giving a brief explanation of what the device demonstrates and its purpose in the modern world. It also mentions the circumstances of its invention. The lead does not directly describe the articles major sections, but it does give a bit of information found within many of those sections. The lead does not include information that cannot be found elsewhere in the article.

Content

The article's content is relevant and up to date to my knowledge. The explanation section was too simplified, in my opinion, and could have explained the physics more in depth. Links to other Wikipedia articles explaining different topics would also be helpful. For example, articles on sound waves, especially sound waves traveling in tubes and standing waves, would be good additions. Some similar links are available in the lead section, but they would be more beneficial and easily accessed in the explanation section.

Tone and Balance

The article is neutral and does not display bias toward any particular position. No viewpoints are severely over represented or under represented and the article does not present any argument or attempt to convince the reader of one position over another.

Sources and References

Very little of the information in the overview and explanation sections is cited when it should be. The second paragraph of the history section which describes more about the workings of the Rubens' tube also has very little citation where it is needed. The section on public displays is sufficiently cited . Under the 2-D Rubens' tube section, the overview and explanation sections could again use more sources. The public displays subsection again contains a number of links to original sources. The sources in the article are thorough and reliable. Many of them are scientific papers and others are links to other Wikipedia articles that explain the specific topic. The sources explaining the workings of the Rubens' tube are old but not out of date given that there has been little interest in new research in the topic for many years. Sources given in the public displays sections are up to date. No source authors were historically marginalized to my knowledge. The links are active and lead to the correct source.

Organization

The article is well written, easy to read, and does not have a large number of grammatical errors. The article is well organized for the most part, but the second paragraph in the history section is not specific to the history of the device and is instead another general explanation on how the device functions with much of the information repeated from the previous explanation and overview sections. Some of this information is new information that should be moved to the explanation section and the rest is repetitive and should be deleted.

Images and Media

There are only three images in this article. One is an image of a Rubens' tube demonstrating a standing wave. The other two are graphs, made by the writer, supporting the explanation section. These images all assist in the understanding of the topic. All images are well captioned and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. These images are also laid out in a way that make the article visually appealing and are convenient for the reader to reference at the appropriate time.

Checking the talk page

Different conversations in this article's talk page include inconsistencies and errors in the article, changes to sources and links, and a discussion about the grammatically correct title for the article. This article is rated as start class on the quality scale and as low importance on the importance scale. It is a part of the WikiProject Physics.

Overall impressions

Overall the article is a simple explanation of only the biggest points related to how the Rubens' tube works and its history. The articles strengths lie in the explanation of what the Rubens' tube is and the purpose that it serves. It could be improved with more in depth explanation of the science behind the device and the history of its invention. I would say that this article is underdeveloped and would benefit from more edits.