User:Apripuff/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: Magic and Religion
 * I've chosen to evaluate this article because it relates to the class I'm currently taking.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

This article does have an introductory sentence. It doesn't exactly say what the article is going to be about in the first sentence, but when you continue further you can see the thesis start to develop. In the introduction paragraph, it does talk about what the article's going to be about, including subtle information about what's to be talked about. Though there is a specific section mentioned later in the article that isn't said in the first paragraph. Everything said in this paragraph is further discussed in the article. This introductory paragraph is concise and straight to the point.

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * The article's content is somewhat relevant. The subparagraph that's questionable is the one about the names of the Gods. I don't think that information pertains to what's already in the particle. The content is not entirely up-to-date. The most recent citation came from 2014, which was 6 years ago. Content that doesn't belong is the information about the names of the Gods. I don't fully understand why this was included in the article. This article talks about the Abrahamic religion and how it relates to the topic of magic and religion. It talks about its complicated past with magic and how it's affected the religion as a whole.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

This article is and should be neutral, considering magic and religion is completely subjective depending on how you are. There isn't any bias but there's a lot of information that seems to be missing about the subject of magic and religion. It doesn't seem to persuade the reader in any way, there's no type of bias or way you could take it as a way to persuade you to think something.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Most of the facts are cited but there's a couple of paragraphs/facts that need to be backed up. The sources do in fact talk about what's mentioned in the article. The sources aren't very current considering some of the sources are from the Bible and/or from decades ago. There are sources are written by a various amount of people that talk about the subject of math and religion. The links in the article are fully working and capable to send readers to the right source.

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is well-written and easy to read. There's not any grammatical errors, but the organization is a bit off and there should be just a bit more information on this subject. The topics are broken down well but I don't think there's enough information about certain topics, such as the Magic and Abrahamic religion topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * There's no images that are included in this article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * The talk page is just about how to improve the article and what subjects were removed that didn't pertain to the certain subject. The article is part of Wikiproject that's meant to improve religious-based wikipages. We talk about magic and religion from an anthropological view, so there's not much talk about the ideologies and views of magic and religion. Rather, there's just facts pertaining to these subjects.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is okay in the aspect of its facts. It's just that there's no images, there's not enough information or there's missing citations. The article could be improved if there was more about the subject of magic and religion and not just some small information. It's a large topic that needs to be assessed and analyzed so that people who need to research it can get the information that they need.

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: