User:Alex Oeser/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: (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

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?

==== The lead is fairly concise, providing a good introduction for the central topic. While it does briefly mention the names of two notable people within the history of the topic, it does not introduce the major sections of the article. In addition to this, Hans Jonas is mentioned in the lead, but not addressed later on in the article. The lead could definitely be modified to include more information about the subtopics discussed later in the article. ====

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

==== The article does not possess any content irrelevant to the central topic, it is all relevant information. The content within the article is up to date, mentioning topics and concepts as recent as 2020 and some of the sources for the article are also as recent as 2020 as well. In places, small amounts of content are missing, but all of the content present seems to be on topic. The article does not discuss any topics directly related to underrepresented populations or topics. ====

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?

==== The article is mostly neutral, but in some locations makes claims that may subtly sway the reader. Under the section of Technoethics, some claims are made in regards to how technology integrates with our society, and how humans will accept the integration of robots into our society. Additionally, the section on pet cloning has a clear slant against the topic, not just addressing the concerns that surround the topic from a neutral perspective. These claims clearly have a perspective to them. ====

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

==== Not all facts within the article are backed up by a source. In some locations, such as Organizational technoethics, no sources are available to back up the statements made. When available though, the sources available are comprehensive and reflective of the available information for the topic. Not all of the sources are current, but this makes sense, as some are important in the history of how the topic has developed over time. Some sources are very recent, including ones as recent as 2019. The links to the sources do 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?

==== Many of the sections are well written, clear, and easy to read. However, a few sections throughout have awkward wording, as well as grammatical errors. The separation of the sections is well thought out and easy to follow for the reader. ====

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?

==== The article does not have any images included and therefore this category of evaluation is mostly not applicable. Images could be relevant in a number of sections, so this may be a potential area of improvement. ====

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?

==== Within the talk page there is a very limited amount of conversation in which editors are discussing the sources used, the writing of various sections, as well as the need for contributors to rewrite and expand a number of the sections. The article is part of WikiProject Philosophy, rated Start-Class and high Importance. It is also part of the WikiProject Technology, rated Start-Class. It is also the subject of several Wikipedia Education courses. ====

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?

==== Currently, overall the article is serviceable and someone visiting the page will find a fairly adequate summary of the topic, as well as its various subtopics. The framework, layout, and core information is good, but several sections could use rewrites to improve their tone and fix grammatical errors. In addition, several more sources should be added for sections that do not currently possess any citations. Perhaps there is also room for expansion of more modern topics as well once these core issues are resolved. Additionally, the lead should definitely be added to, in order to better lay out the subtopics of the article as a whole. ====

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: