User:BHUP0000/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Tusi couple

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I choose this article because it's regarding a topic that was discussed in our class. It was a confusing topic, and as such, I'm hoping to gain a better understanding of it with this Wikipedia article.

Evaluate the article
The lead section is well written. The first sentence provides a short and clear introduction to the subject. Beyond the first sentence, is a quick overview of the topic that expands upon the first sentence.

The overall content encompasses the topic well. Most of the sections are adequately balanced. However, the "later examples" and the "hypotrochoid" sections are a bit brief. This is an area that could be expanded upon to provide a more encompassing perspective.

The tone and balance of the article is neutral. Despite there being lots of controversy as to who was aware of the "tulsi couple" and how the discovery was shared, the tone stayed consistent and never was accusatory or supportive in any direction. There were no opinions or any ideas that were trying to push readers toward a certain message.

The sources seem accurate and legitimate. All of the links I tested were correct and directed me to the source. The majority of them seem to be primary sources which further leads me to believe that the article is reliable.

The writing is clear without any grammar mistakes. The article is organized well in a variety of relevant sections.

The images/animations that are provided on the article were really helpful in explaining the "Tulsi couple" phenomenon. They are all captioned and seem to be cited in the correct manner.

The talk section shows that while there haven't been any recent discussions, the section was very active about a decade ago. There were lots of discussions regarding Arabic facts and better explanations regarding the motion of the phenomenon. There was even a copyright violation that was resolved. Furthermore, one of the more recent comments that came in 2014, suggests adding more about epicycles to expand upon the topic. The article was rated a C and as low-importance. The article does not appear to be apart of any Wikiprojects.

Overall, I think this is a solid Wikipedia page. It's a niche subject and as such, I wasn't expecting a super in-depth page with lots of information and editing. That being said, I was surprised to see that many people were and have been involved in creating this page. This can all be seen in the quality information that was provided as well as the animations that were linked in the article. The images/animations are a clear strength. I do believe, however, that adding to the later examples" and the "hypotrochoid" sections could make this page more complete.