User:Bluemystic24/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.


 * Religious Studies: Religious studies
 * I chose this article becasue religion has always facinated me.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does, it talks about what the article will be about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes it does.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? There are some things.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's pretty detailed with dates.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? yes it is because it talks about religiion in terms of history, and anthropolgy and culture.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, the last update was on June 6, 2020
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I was able to find.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I'm not sure what an equity gap is. I think it does adress topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics becasue it involves religion and many of these topics are underrepresented.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, it's neutral becasue it's only giving information about religion.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, none at all.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? yes there is a few such as culture of religion and origin of religion.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes there is a few.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes some of them are
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes there are a few authors. No they don't include marginzlized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes all the ones i've checked are working.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it was easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? none that I was able to catch.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it's well-organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The few it is does help.
 * Are images well-captioned? Only one is well captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not really.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Many people are talking about removing science from the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It dosen't seem to be part of any Wikiprojects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? hmm. I don't think we have talked about this topic in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? I think it's still under development
 * What are the article's strengths? The strengths are the methodology it proves much detail about that.
 * How can the article be improved? The article can be imporved by adding more information regarding the history and culture.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think it's underdeveloped it seems to have a few things missing here and there.

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: