User:Bgrummon/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Classical Logic: Classical logic

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I find logic to be an interesting field of study, and have taken a liking to it beside my normal studies. I found this article to be a bit lacking in information and was mostly centered on the history of classical logic and not much else.

Evaluate the article
The lead section provided a decent one sentence summary but not much else. The lead section provided little or no information about the article's sections, save for some brief note about its significance in philosophy.

The tone is unbiased, clearly laying out the historical foundations and characteristics of classical logic, however, it doesn't seem to include many view points in the history section.

The content is up to date but this page seems lacking overall. The author(s) seemed to have relied on other articles to make this one complete. Someone looking for information on classical logic would find that they may need to use imbedded links very often while navigating this article.

This paper lacks many sources. It has none in any of its history section, which appears to have been directly taken from another Wikipedia article. While the sources are mostly primary literature, there are some encyclopedia sources that do not reflect the most up to date sources regarding this topic. Some of the links I would not even consider secondary literature, and I have no way of knowing their validity. The whole of the history section has no sources cited except for the other wikipedia article.

Grammatically the article is written well and organized well enough. It focuses first on the definition of classical logic, a few of its characteristics (not much info on them though) and then a bit about its history though with no sources cited.

The article's talk page is "dead." No one has been there since 2013, and many of the topics brought up are on the semantics and jargon of the topic. One user brings up a good point that an effort should be taken to simplify the lead and and characteristics sections to make it more easily readable for non-experts.

I would say that a professional academic or teacher needs to take a look at this article and revive it, as well as address its shortcomings in content, citations, and the way it was written. I think it needs to be able to stand on its own, without demanding the reader go to multiple different articles just to read about the topic they thought they were going to read about. I find it underdeveloped.