User:Bellanapodano/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: Transcendental Meditation
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. On a personal level, meditation as a topic of study is of interest to me but as a philosophy major, transcendental meditation is especially enticing to explore.

Lead in

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead precisely defines what transcendental meditation entails as a concept but it doesn't go further to define meditation as an independent concept. It summarizes well most sections in the article except for the Maharishi effect, which is the theory that collective transcendental meditation could have an effect on a local environment. I believe the lead is pretty concise and doesn't include information that isn't present in the following sections.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The article's content is very relevant to the topic in a historic and fundamental light yet it lacks the debate that comes from including different credible sources who have done academic research on the topic. This topic specifically doesn't relate to historic gaps or underrepresented populations but it is a very commonly misrepresented concept. I think acknowledging that many people reject the scientific possibility of transcendental meditation is even further reason to include the dialectic between scientists, philosophers, and cross-culture religious leaders who have studied on the topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

This article is very neutral and informative and does a good job at explaining the normative, historic and fundamental side of transcendental meditation but it underrepresents the spiritual belief in the power this connection allows as well as lacks the numerous scientific studies simultaneously done on life-long meditators.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

The sources are very thorough, especially for an article that is rather short for this topic. I would agree that it does poorly to reflect the available literature on the topic even though the sources are current. The issue with the limited information is that the article doesn't allow for a diversity of opinion or debate which would allow the reader to gather his/her own evaluative opinion. Instead, the article attempts to hold a neutral and objective tone which, in reality, translates to limiting information available on the topic.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

I did not recognize any grammatical or spelling errors and I think the article is very easy to read for any audience but a general audience might lack the basic knowledge of mediation alone as a concept. In order to facilitate this it would be helpful to introduce meditation as a section and make reference to it in the lead.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

There is only one image of Maharishi, who advocated for collective transcendental meditation. Although more images could be visually appealing and insightful, I recognize that it is very hard to visually consolidate an ontological question into an image so I believe that a historic figure was a good choice for the image. It also adheres to Wikipedia's regulations and is compliant.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Although I found many revisions, one caught my eyes that highlights how the first paragraph focuses more on mantra meditation vs transcendental meditation. I disagree since it mentions both but I think the article could use a better distinction of a)meditation b)mantra meditation and c) transcendental meditation to prevent this confusion and go more in depth on the topic. I didn't see that it was part of any wiki projects or had an article rating yet. The way wikipedia discusses TM is very different from my philosophy classes, in which we always strive to study contrasting views to find a universal truth.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

I think the article is narrowly focused and could be classified as good. It's strengths are mainly its compliance with Wikipedia's copyright laws, its neutral and concise tone, and its elaborate sources. Its weaknesses are a lack of representation of debate from contrasting sources when talking about a highly debated topic. Due to this I would say this article is undeveloped but has good fundamental information to build on and edit.

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: