User:At00naSammich/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: Galen
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I find the medical side of historical science more interesting than the astronomical side of things.

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?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, Galen's switch from primates to pigs for dissection is mentioned in the Lead but not discussed in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think for the overall length of the article the Lead is concise for the amount of information it had to summarize.

Lead evaluation
The Lead for this article was longer than I have seen on other Wikipedia articles; however, it was still succinct in accomplishing all of the goals of a Lead. There is a lot of information to cover when summarizing a person's life so it makes sense that the Lead is longer than a couple sentences.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is a short section on Galenic scholarship which seems a bit out of place, but it is short and adds to his life story, so I would say it does still belong.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, Galen was a rich white male.

Content evaluation
I thought the article was very rich in content. It gave me a sense of Galen's whole life as well as some of his lesser known interests, but it did not focus half the article on these lesser theories. I think the ratio of text dedicated to very important versus less important topics was spot on. Also, the various links helped vastly in defining uncommon jargon that was used by Galen and his peers.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there is even ample discussion about Islamic philosophers, which have been conveniently forgotten by some (Copernicus).
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
This article did a great job of remaining neutral and describing the facts. Having to rely on written history, it is easy to remain neutral with the relatively little amount of evidence about Galen, but this also raises the question if we are not getting the entire story because of evidence we haven't found yet.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, and I'm not sure but there are a plethora of sources throughout the entire article
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The sources in this article are well implemented and there is a variety of authors for the source material. I am unaware of possible marginalized authors, but given it is a biography of Galen's life, the majority of sources were describing his works.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation
While it is a long article, it has relevant and specific sections that break up the wall of text it would be otherwise. Furthermore, it is a long article because of the nature of the article, not from over-analysis or long-windedness.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, to my knowledge
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Images and media evaluation
The images in the article compliment the article very well. While there aren't any photographs from 200 AD, drawings of Galen and some diagrams from his work made it easier to understand some of the more complex ideas of his theories.

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 was a lot of conversation regarding historical discrepancies.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is a level 4 Vital article in People. It is a part of WikiProjects for Biology, Greece, Biography/Science and Academia, Philosophy, Classical Greece and Rome, History of Science, Medicine, Religion, Anatomy.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not talked about Galen too much in class, but I would say that this expands upon the bit we touched on in class, especially the humor theory.

Talk page evaluation
there was frequent conversation on the talk page and it was conducive conversation, not shouting matches. It is crazy to see talk from 13 years ago on the talk page and it shows how far the article has come from its conception.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Throughout most of the WikiProjects, it is labelled as a C-Class with high or mid importance.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is a very great overview of Galen's life and there are plenty of sources for further research.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * From browsing the talk page, it seems like there needs to be some fact checking to determine correct dates, although this can be tough with a limited written record and differing sources.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say the article is very well developed.

Overall evaluation
I think that this article has had a lot of revision, but that has made it very well developed with a committed team of editors interested in keeping this article correct and factual.

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: