User:Anoopnil/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: Socratic method
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * The assignment asks to evaluate any article as a test run for evaluation. I picked the socratic method since it's an article that needs improvement (graded C) under education and is of high importance. I'm not sure if I would consider it for the actual article I do.

Lead evaluation
The lead of the article has a very clear description of what the socratic method is in one sentence. It also provides a background for the socratic method as well as a brief description in the way it works. There is also a clear table of contents that succinctly organizes the various sections of relevant information regarding the socratic method including its development, method, & application. Everything discussed in the lead was further discussed in the rest of the article. The lead is very easy to read and technically three paragraphs, but the last two paragraphs are one and two sentences respectively serving more as a separation of ideas in the lead.

Content evaluation
In terms of being up to date, the content is accurate since the socratic method itself hasn't changed in essence since Socrates introduced it in the 5th century B.C. In fact the most recent edit was on November 11 suggesting that the content has been checked recently enough. All the content in the article is relevant to what was stated in the lead and mentioned as being there in the table of contents. The content reaches as far as the applications of the socratic method in psychotherapy fully fleshing out the topic. The article itself doesn't discuss one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, but it does discuss an educational tool that can be used around the world to increase critical thinking in a way that works with any group of students who speak any language in almost any relevant subject which in effect works towards the UN goal of universal education and Wikipedia's equity gap. Since this article is applicable to almost anyone, it doesn't specifically benefit underrepresented populations, but it can since the information can be used for education in any environment rich or poor.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of the article appears to be neutral as it introduces the method and its applications. However, it does offer up the views of its critics towards the end which could have a sway on a reader's opinion. While it's necessary to post the negative opinions there should also be more on the positive opinions in what would become a placement of differing opinions of different experts. That way people can view both sides explicitly rather than see the positive implicitly throughout the article. Overall, though there doesn't seem to be any intended bias.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources listed are reputable for the most part. They link to published papers at official Universities in the U.S. and abroad. However, there are some that are not open source and also don't look like a reliable source. For example, one is from the Oxford Library, but can't be accessed and another source is pretty much unknown. However, for the most part they are good sources albeit more than a few are not open source which poses a problem. The sources are directly referenced throughout the article supporting the information. Considering the oldness of the socratic method, the dates for the sources are all over the place ranging from the 1960's to 2016. This isn't necessarily an issue since the method is several thousand years old. The authors of the sources are also wide-ranging including men, women, Whites, Asians, & Eastern European scholars at first glance. The presence of more diversity such as a Black or Latinx scholar could serve as an improvement. Almost every link works, but the issue of open access and old paper textbooks makes it hard to reach several sources.

Organization evaluation
The article is easy to read and not written in a confusing manner. It's concise and gets straight to the point. There weren't any grammatical errors on my first scan of the article. It's organized extremely well as stated in the table of contents allowing for a comprehensive look at the socratic method.

Images and media evaluation
There are absolutely no images or links to videos to help understand the topic or give a potential example. This needs to be improved.

Talk page evaluation
The edits suggested on the talk page are mainly wording adjustments and the rephrasing of some paragraphs. There are also some suggestions on some mergers. The article has been rated as C-class as well as of high importance in several fields including education and philosophy. These various fields are all WikiProjects.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is given a C-class rating with high importance to many WikiProjects. The strengths of the article are in its succinct display of information and organization of the article. However, there is no media to support it, the references need to be tweaked so that they are open source, and the tone could have slightly more balance. The article is developed enough to be used for its information, but its weaknesses prevent it from being a truly complete article and enter the A-class.