User:Amart999/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Kairos

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I went down the suggested rabbit hold of academic disciplines, and I tried to find something related to my major -- Writing and Rhetoric. Therefore, I went down the Rhetoric path and eventually stumbled on Kairos. This was a concept foreign to me until a short while ago, so I decided to view what it had to say. My preliminary impression is that it was an organized article that defined what mattered first, and took me through the historical importance of the concept as time has passed. It focused on the most important information first, such as classical rhetoric and followed to the more niche areas, such as Christian Theology. About that section; I enjoyed how neutral yet detailed the topic of kairos was in relation to Christian theology. Whether or not the authors believe it, the facts are stated as facts.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section

The lead section is concise and clearly describes the article’s topic. It does not wander on too long, nor does it include too many details to the point that it is overbearing. If I want to know what kairos is, the lead section does it well. What the lead section does not do well is provide a brief description of the article’s major sections. It simply lists the major sections of the article, in which kairos is found under different disciplines, but it does not summarize each article’s section. In the context of kairos, I am not exactly sure that this is possible nor necessary, but I would understand the requirement. How could you provide a brief description on kairos in Christian theology? The Christian theology section, as a name, is descriptive enough to me. It is about how kairos is involved and found within the Bible. However, maybe I am wrong and I have much to learn.

Content

The content is extremely relevant to the topic and up-to-date. Content is not missing, to my eyes, but again, I am no expert on this topic. There is a section that presents an argument for kairos in the digital media, which I think does not belong due to the tone, but that will be covered in the next section. The topics here do not necessarily account for underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance

The article is mostly neutral, until the end of the article. The last section of the article — kairos in the digital media — is biased in the way that it is written. It is written from a personal standpoint, like an essay trying to prove a point. I would not say that what is written is wrong, per se, but it is definitely speculators and deserves to be rewritten in an encyclopedic tone. The article must be neutral overall.

Sources and References

All the of links work, and the facts are backed up by historical data that comes from books, research papers, and several different authors spanning decades from each other.

Organization and Writing Quality  + Images and Media

I do not have much to say regarding the two sections as they check most of the filters that the guiding questions provide. The article is concise and well written, easy to read without grammatical errors. I like the way that the page is organized as it deals with several different sections where kairos is relevant, from the most historical to the most modern. I dislike the last section at the end and believe the writing quality should be questioned when it comes to kairos in the digital age. Regarding images and media, the images are captioned well. There are not many images, but two are present to describer that displays what Kairos might mean. This subject, especially has a linguistically focused on, is hard to provide pictures for. The images are laid out in a simple manner, but overall, it is slightly ineffective — perhaps more pictures of the historians that are involved in the creation or mention of kairos could have been placed.

Talk Page

Apparently, back in 2013, this article was a nightmare. People had many concerns about the written status of this article and were genuinely angry about it. Many of them rated it poorly, but it was vastly improved as the years passed. It is part of some wikiprojects and is designated as education material, meaning it definitely did something wright. These conversations regarding the status of the article have much to do with tone and writing style, particularly criticism on the last section of the article.

Overall impressions

The article is overall a solid piece of work. It is strong in its concision and historical representation of what kairos means. It also has good summaries on several topics that could be controversial and yet remains neutral amidst all of that. The article could be improved when it comes to the image department, as well as the last section regarding digital media. This section should be rewritten entirely into a more academic/encyclopedic tone — one that is clearly neutral and tries not to form an argument.