User:Alexander.Larabie/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: Area of a circle
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I am a Math major, and this article fits in my area of interest and knowledge, allowing for more accurate evaluation of the article.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, but many of the major sections are various proofs regarding the area in question, making connections between them sparse and ineffective.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes. It makes mention of the distinction between "circle" and "disk" in formal mathematics, which is not directly relevant to any other section of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It seems concise to me, considering the detail and length of the article as a whole.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Very. Much of the article regards various proofs of the area of a circle, which is one of few details that are lacking from what most people already know through school.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The area of a circle isn't really something that's going to be changing a lot since it's proof back in the times of ancient Greece, so I'd say it's as up-to-date as it needs to be.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Nothing that is obvious to my eyes.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * I'm a little unsure how anyone could be biased regarding a mathematical formula or proof. With that in mind, I see no obvious evidence of bias in the article.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * See above point.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Perhaps one could argue that the geometric proofs are over-represented, but they DO make up a majority of the standard "area proofs" especially regarding circles, so I would say they make up an appropriate amount of the article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No "stands" are really taken in this article, so there isn't an ability to sway favor for a position.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Technically, no. Much of the article is detailing mathematical proofs, and quite a lot of math is backed up solely by experience of process. To verify the math involved, one would need to go another 5 or so sources removed from the article's citations, however this is quite pedantic. Everything which could not be recognized by a professional mathematician is cited with reputable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Admittedly, I have not done searches regarding the available literature on the area of a circle. However, I feel that, taking into account the relative obscurity of the topic in its field, there is quite a variety of sources present in the article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * See the above point regarding how "up-to-date" the article is.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I sampled approximately 10 links, dispersed evenly throughout the article, and they were all valid.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * For someone mathematically inclined, yes. The only barrier to reading the article would be a lack of assumed knowledge, such as lacking knowledge of calculus for the disk-integration section of the article.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No major errors that prevented understanding, if any were present at all.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I believe so.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes. Many images/GIFs on the article provide graphical representation of the geometric proofs present in the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Again assuming mathematical inclination, the captions are appropriate and clear.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I cannot speak for the current copyright laws, however I find it doubtful that pictures of circles, triangles, chords, and arcs COULD be copyrighted, let alone infringed upon.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * In my personal opinion, yes. I like the parallelism between the lines of mathematical proof and the pictures across the page from them.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is a small debate regarding the "disk v circle" section of the introduction previously mentioned. That is the only major conversation that has occurred on the talk page for this article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is listed as a C-class, Mid-importance article under Wikiproject: Mathematics.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * I don't recall talking about anything regarding talk pages in class. In any case, Wikipedia is clearly more detail-oriented than I gave it credit for at first, regarding the implications of exact word choice.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I don't fully understand the question. If this is regarding the approved status by users of Wikipedia, then perhaps the above point "How is the article rated" would be suffice.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It shows great depth of research on the subject, considering how many proofs and approximations are listed on the page. It gives a good idea not only of how we have reached the conclusion of the formula today, but also about the progress made along the way towards understanding and approximating the value of Pi.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * I do not see anything I would personally wish would be improved on this article. I believe that it is appropriately detailed for the topic of concern.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say that the article is well-developed, with many facets of the topic presented. Perhaps more sources could be appreciated, but the amount present as of writing is more than enough to verify the information in the article and show variety of professional approval regarding the topic.

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: