User:Aewlarsen/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: Perception
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I chose to evaluate this article as the concept of perception is something we cover within the textbook for this class. As a result, I felt evaluating an article regarding this would be appropriate as we were asked to evaluate an article that had a connection to the course material. In addition, I find perception to be an interesting concept as it dives into the physiological reaction that occurs within the body in response to a stimulus.

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
Regarding the Lead, I felt it was very well structured. Within the first sentence, the reader can clearly understand what the topic entails while still being concise. Following the first sentence in the Lead, the article continues to discuss perception in a little more detail and briefly summarizes the components that comprise the bulk of the article, providing the reader with a necessary understanding of the role these factors play in perception. The Lead did not include any information that did not pertain to the rest of the article and went into enough detail to provide the reader with the tools to understand the rest of the article while still bringing together the additional subsections to describe perception as a whole.

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 article is very relevant to the topic. Although a reader, glancing through may be confused as to why there are subsections including vision, sound, touch, etc., after reading the Lead, the reader would very quickly understand why these subheadings are appropriate. To my knowledge on the subject of perception, I felt the article was up to date. There is some research and understandings that could find a place in this article, however I don't feel the article is containing any large gaping holes in regards to the topic as it is. In regards to content that does not belong or that could be excessive to the article, I did not feel this article fell under either of these categories. The article was well balanced, providing more in depth information on the subject as the article continued while still giving a brief and simple disruption of the topic within the Lead of the article.

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 on perception has a very neutral tone. At no point while reading the article did I sense a bias towards one branch of research on the topic. While viewpoints are represented within the article, there is not a dominating or overrepresented viewpoint, nor is one underrepresented to my knowledge. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of any particular position regarding perception or the research that has been conducted regarding research.

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
In evaluating the article and the sources used to create the article, there is a substantial number of resources on this article and I was unable to find any information in the article that I was unable to find a reliable secondary source to back up statements found within the article. The references are appropriately presented in a way that is easy for the reader to navigate and appropriately represents the original source. While some of the source are older than others, they are still current. All of the links I clicked on within the article and references worked besides one that was already mentioned in the Talk page.

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
The organization of this article was done extremely well. The article is very clear and easy for the reader to understand, regardless of they background on the subject. To demonstrate this, I had my husband, an accounting major, to read the article and summarize the content to me. My husband, having no background in psychology was also able to easily understand the article. In evaluating the article, I did not come across any grammatical or spelling errors. The sections of which this article is broken down into are very natural and appropriate. Within the Lead, the subsections within the article are clearly outlined and given context regarding their importance. After the Lead, the article continues to have a natural flow from each subtopic to the next.

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
This is an area the article could improve on, however this topic is one that is difficult to have images that pertain to the topic. The images associated with the article are not inaccurate or inappropriate as they include images of many of the philosophers and scientists behind studying perception, however the two images included to demonstrate the idea of perception to the reader could improve. The captions on the images are clear and do aide the reader in further understanding the concept of perception. The images are placed in an aesthetically pleasing way and adhere to Wikipedias's copyright regulations.

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
On the talk page, there are a number of different topics being discussed regarding the article. For one, some believe there is not enough content within the article regarding neuroscience. In reading the article, it is clear that neuroscience does have a place in this subject, but it maybe isn't as big as the individual on the talk page would suggest. In addition, there is some discussion regarding the first sentence, giving a definition of the term perception. The conversation regarding this portion of the article I don't believe would be appropriate to change. This article is a C-class rating and is part of five different WikiProjects. As for how the article discussing perception compares to the way the textbook discusses are rather similar. There weren't any stark differences that I was able to see.

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, the status of the article is reputable. The strengths of the article I would say lie in the Lead. The introduction lays a great foundation for the rest of the article and does an excellent job of being understandable to the reader. The article can improve by perhaps expanding on a few topics such as neuroscience, philosophy, and fixing the one citation that is faulty. As a whole, the article is very complete. While adding a few minor improvements could benefit the article, on the larger part, the article is very well-developed and well put together.

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: