User:Overworked.raposo/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

Air free technique

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

Air-free methods are something that I am fairly familiar with, even though I am not an expert. Therefore I believe I can make a good judgement of the content presented. At first, the article seems to cover most of the important topics that come to my mind.

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.)

Lead Section

The lead section in this article gives a decent introduction to the two main techniques used to ensure an air-free environment, including reasons, methods and brief procedure. It does not mention all of the topics that the article mentions like methods of water and air detection. The lead section also goes into more detail than the glovebox section on how degassing and drying are done in the methods, it briefly describes the procedure while the actual section never mentions the ante-chamber, an essential part of the box.

There is no information on the history of the technique or in the development of the methods.

Content

The article does a decent job when talking about gloveboxes, although it is missing information that was mentioned in the lead section. The Schlenck technique, however, is tackled superficially and the section definitly does not go into enough detail about it. There are only three examples (which are copied from 'Schlenk line'), they never actually say how the apparatus works, and the pictures are never explained. Commercially available or large scale dry solvents are never mentioned and the Detection of O₂/water section is missing important methods such as diethyl zinc, electronic sensors, and a more detailed description of Ti(III).

The article does not provide any information about the historical development or about the contributors and has only one recent reference, from 2018, the newest one out of the rest is from 2010.

Tone and Balance

The article does not seem to favour too much a method over the other, but it simply lacks information about Schlenck technique and other drying methods. Otherwise, the two presented methods are the dominant techniques used nowadays and the information is presented in a fairly neutral way. Although it is missing information, it doesn't seem to be favouring the one presented on the text.

Sources and References

There are definitly not enough sources in this article, the first reference is at the end of the lead section and there are no references in the entire glovebox section. Overall, this is missing key points that would be included if more sources were to be used and the topics presented are missing references.

The links do work and they are mostly peer-reviewed papers, however, it looks like the author used one reference, rarely two, per topic.

Organization and writing quality

The structure of the article makes sense, I wouldn't say that there are any missing sections and they are organized in a logical way. I did not have trouble reading the text and it flows pretty well.

Images and Media

The images are relevant and well-captioned, but their quality is on the lower side. This article would benefit a lot from some diagrams and more detailed descriptions of the images, as they show complex apparatus and machines that most people have never seen before. The images do not have references associated with them, but based on the quality alone I wouldn't be surprised if the author took the pictures themselves.

Talk page

There is some content discussion on the talk page, but they seem to have concluded that the additions are more suited for the specific glovebox/Schlenk pages. Additionally, some discussion regarding the reliability of the work of the authors in an old reference of the page happened. The article is C-class and it is part of a WikiProject, but is only rated Mid-importance.

Overall impression

This article is a superficial introduction that would be useful for people with no knowledge on the topic. It is missing key information and needs more references on the topics it does go into. Besides that, it could do a better job explaining how schlenk technique works, which leaves a huge gap in the article. I would say it needs a mix of improvement on the clarity of some of the present topics and aggregation of some new subtopics into the article. It does do a good job of breaking the topic down and introducing the area.