User:Tannerhowe/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: Eddy (fluid dynamics)
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Advection and diffusion often consume much of any conversation in fluid mechanics. It is important to understand what role eddies play in the grand scheme of fluid mechanics, especially as they pertain to analyzing advective or diffusive fluxes.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? "In fluid dynamics, an eddy is the swirling of a fluid and the reverse current created when the fluid is in a turbulent flow regime." This sentence is somewhat concise, I wouldn't call it clear though.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, there is a table of contents.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise, relatively short compared to other leads.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the title of the article makes it clear they topic is eddies as they pertain to fluid dynamics, not another subject, because I believe there are multiple meanings. It looks like the article drifts into describing turbulence more than describing eddies?
Is the content up-to-date? Last edits were made in November 2019, article was created in 2006. I would say the article is update, as far as my understanding of the content entails.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is one section on mesoscale eddies, but not much on smaller eddies. This can be an area of addition.

Is the article neutral? Yes
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, I am not too surprised by the outcome of this section in evaluating this article. Scientific articles are relatively unbiased, especially when they pertain to subject material in physics.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? From what I can tell, there is a missing reference.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I am surprised by how little references there are for the article. I figured there would be, many sources available on the topic.
Are the sources current? No, most sources are from the early 2000s and the newest reference is from 2017.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes!

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is concise and easy to read. I think the sections and organization are done well. Not too long.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None immediately noticed.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, like I said before. The sections are clear and concise. I believe more sections can be added on.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, there are GIFs and images in the article which help for some understanding.
Are images well-captioned? Yes, each visual has a description.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? From what I can tell, yes.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Not much, last edits done were last year.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? No.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? To a degree, the article goes into much more detail.

What is the article's overall status? Can use some improvement 7/10
What are the article's strengths? Concise, good images.
How can the article be improved? More sound scientific information. More references.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say under-developed. Could be a good project enhancing the article.

Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~~~~