User:StrongCompound/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article becuase I have been using the Spectronic 20 instrument in biochemistry lab recently. I am now comfortable with this instrument and I wanted to learn more about its history. I was satisfied with this article and it provided great historical context on this instrument.

Evaluate the article

The lead section was strong but could be improved. The first sentence provided a perfect, concise overview of the Spectronic 20. The section does a good job at introducing this intrument, it's function, and preparing readers to dive into the historical details of the instrument. Although it is a great introduction for the instrument, it does not highlight the key points the artice will cover later on in the article. As I continued to read the article, I felt surprised to see some of the sections because I was not expecting them.

The content is excellent. The content is as expected, thorough, and detailed. It is also well cited throughout the article. However, there is a section ("Popular Culture") in the article that seemed unnecessary but it does not make the article weaker. I just do not see the use or function of including it. Otherwise, the content is really good.

The article is neutral and well-balanced. Because it is about an instrument, I was not expecting any opinions or bias. My expectations were met because the article was just a summary of the facts pertaining to the Spectronic 20 instrument.

The sources and references seem good. The author correctly cited information in this article. However, when I clicked the reference links, many of them are unavailable or have been taken down so they are inaccessible now. There was a good handful of them that are no longer valid sources and need to be updated. I believe the sites worked when the article was created but they are no longer valid. This is the largest concern I observed in this article.

The organization is great and goes hand in hand with the images. There are no unnecessary images and they relate to the content of the article, providing usual visuals for better understanding of the content for readers. I appreciate the organization of the sections but I would have liked a sentence letting us know what they would discuss throughout the article in the lead section. Overall, I think this was a great article. I think the biggest concerns that need to be addressed are updating the sources/references and possibly adding a sentence to the lead section that introduces the sections of the article.