User:Acforlando/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: Phenomenology (philosophy)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article to evaluate because my QR mini-paper topic is hermeneutic phenomenology. I tried searching for that term, and it brought me here because there is not a sub-page for hermeneutic phenomenology. After reading through the page, I decided to use this because it is as close to my topic as I can get.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead is concise and includes a definition. I would not say that the lead includes the article's major sections. It includes a historical overview of the concept. The lead introduces information that is present in the article, but some information in the article is not present in the lead. I would say that the lead is overly detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The content within the phenomenology article is relevant to the topic at hand. It includes an overview of the historical concepts, founding contributors, actual concepts from the field, and an overview of offshoots from the field. I cannot see any content that does not belong. Because I don't know every historical fact about phenomenology, I also cannot see any content that sticks out as missing from the page.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article seems to be decently neutral for an article discussing a type of philosophy. Some of the offshoot forms of phenomenology have more supporting facts than others, and therefore seem biased to be in favor of those specific forms. Based on my interpretation, I do not feel that the overweighted sections are trying to persuade the reader in favor of one position or another. I just feel there is a bit too much information on a few specific topics, and not as much on others.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The section on Transcendental phenomenology after the Ideen (1913) does not contain any sources and is already noted by Wikipedia. The other sections' facts all contain citations that reflect the available literature on phenomenology. Some of the citations are older, but then again, so is the philosophy being studied - so I feel the sources are okay. The links that I checked work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
I feel the article is decently well-written. It is a bit clunky in the middle, but I attribute some of that clunkiness to the topic matter. The article does not have any obvious spelling or grammatical errors within its paragraphs. I feel the article could be broken down further into sub-categories within the different types of phenomenology.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
There are three small portrait images at the top of the page, but no others. Additionally, there is no other media. The media is well-captioned but does not add much to the page as some of the images are very old and do not tell the story of phenomenology.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The article is rated C class, and for good reason. The people on the Talk page had some of the same feelings I did about the article - although all of the information is technically correct, there is much room for improvement within the structure and content. It is a part of the WikiProject Altered States of Consciousness.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, this article needs a lot of work interns of additional information to improve its effectiveness of letting people know what phenomenology really is. I actually found the Talk page to be more helpful in learning about the subject from the philosophical standpoint than I did the article itself. The comments that the article is underdeveloped have been there since 2005, so I'm thinking this is not a recent problem.

Optional activity

 * 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 — ~


 * Link to feedback: