User:Anakondra/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Scientology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate the Scientology wikipedia because I wanted to see if it was biased in any way. In matters of religion especially, it is important to approach topics with a neutral perspective. My initial impression of the Scientology wikipedia was how in depth it was and how much information they provided about the beliefs.

Evaluate the article
Lead section : It provides a brief, yet comprehensive introduction into the preliminary history of the beliefs of Scientologists. It is focused on the history rather than the beliefs itself, so it would probably be better to start the article off with more emphasis on the beliefs of Scientology rather than its scandals. The lead section is not overly detailed, just skewed in the historical direction.

Content : The content of this page is vast and provides extensive explanations that could easily be written into new wikipedia article. It is well researched though with diverse citations. It goes into the history L. Ron Hubbard as well as the Church of Scientology as it dedicates an entire section for the founder (that is not very relevant to the beliefs). Aforementioned, it focuses on the Church's scandals and their affairs alongside their beliefs. Perhaps it would be better to redistribute the scandals and that information towards the Church of Scientology's wikipedia article.

Tone and Balance : The article states many times how the religion has been called a cult before (while providing evidence) but it never actively states that it is a cult or dangerous. It simply provides evidence towards times when government officials have declared it. The overwhelming amount of information regarding the scandals though makes it seem like the article is more about the religion's reputation rather than the beliefs.

Sources and References : With almost 500 individual references from books, articles, and academic studies, this article has broad perspectives from several different outlets. This makes the article trustworthy and ensures that information is not coming from one source. It also uses information from the religion's website as well.

Organization and writing quality : This is an extremely long article that provides thorough clarifications on the practices of Scientology, as well as providing background information and history of specific practices and its origins. It is organized well in the way that it compacts information tightly into their own subsections without spilling over with unnecessary and irrelevant details. However, like I have mentioned before, it would be better to condense the article and make it easier to navigate rather than having such an abundance of information all stored in one article.

Images and media : The images are relevant to what is being discussed in the article and provide descriptive captions.

Talk page discussion : The talk page has focused on the readability of the article and points out its flaws (that apparently have not been changed in a while, for some reason). Many contributors agree that the information in the article can be merged or condensed so that the article is not as vast. Also, the topic of Scientology's religion status is often discussed and updated regularly. One message that caught my eye was in the beginning of the talk page: "The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless." I appreciate that neutrality is upheld here but that neutrality is also associated with providing controversial evidence.

Overall impressions : The article definitely needs some work with organization and planning out where and how to move/condense/merge the topics within it. I would love to see this article refurnished and organized better. Despite the amazing amount of work and research that was put into it, it would be a good move to consider shortening the article and focusing on the beliefs of Scientology rather than its reputation.