User:Bradley Goldsmith/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.


 * Erasmus Darwin: link
 * I chose this one because I found it on the list of C-Class articles under History of Science and I like learning about Darwin's biography.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, more or less. Sections are in the order they come up in the lead prose.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, everything is addressed and developed in later section. However, some of the information is not elaborated much beyond restating and placing it in context. E.g. the lead mentions that Darwin declined to be King George III's royal physician. This information appear later in the Early life and education section. While the section does describe his successful career as a midland physician and even a folktale-esque story of Darwin using unorthodox techniques to save a man, the only citation provided for this fact is a history of the London Geological Society which merely mentions the fact in passing and cites a different historian. So while this detail is correct, it may be being abused and misrepresented in the article, because the successes of his medical career (which are meant to relate to this fact) are unsubstantiated.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise.

Lead evaluation
While the lead is concise and factual, it is not very efficient. It does not make any statements as to the significance of or interest in Erasmus Darwin. For instance, the article for, say, Charles Darwin likely says something along the lines of "is best known for his theory of natural selection and contributions to the science of evolutionary." with relevant section citations. (I just checked, and more or less, yep). This is problematic to me because a lay-reader may not realize which aspects of Darwin's life are influential and for which reasons, making the article difficult to navigate.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * It appear so from checking some citations.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The "Personal Life" section is entirely about his love-life and children. Nothing of notable correspondences with friends or other lifestyle details are described.

Content evaluation
The content is mostly comprehensive, though does ignore some obvious questions readers would likely have (about Charles Darwin, or about his theory of evolution, e.g.). It is also at points not well-c

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no, even the sections on his "natural philosophical poetry" are written neutrally and with clarity.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * no, but some of the sections lacked nuance. In the section on his Zoonomia, the article claims that Erasmus came up with survival of the fittest and the idea of reproduction as a goal for all organic life. While he certainly foreshadowed these theories as they would be conceived by Charles Darwin, the article is not critical enough in describing how they are different.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is unbiased but does tend to gloss over details a little glibly. This may be due to a lack of research.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * as i mentioned above concerning the George III story, the article is not evenly well-cited. But the citations that are provided are helpful, correct, and reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes--a mix of primary and historiographical works.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

Sources and references evaluation
I would not say this article is thoroughly cited, but all the information that is cited is reliable.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * mostly, but some of the sentences can get a little too long and confusing (with a lot of hedging language).
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * not that i saw
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes

Organization evaluation
Maybe as more details are researched and filled in, more sections will become necessary. Over all, I think it is well organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes, it had portraits, a modern photograph of his house, and even a family tree.
 * There is one part where a specific portrait is referenced, but the image does not appear in the article (nor is it linked to).
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * they're a little small for my tastes.

Images and media evaluation
Good use of images and diagrams.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Mostly things about chronological mistakes, or sections that were under-cited and biased. Many of these were sections incorrectly attributing ideas and inventions to Erasmus Darwin.
 * There was one thread where a poster in contact with an Erasmus Darwin biographer had him fact-check the page and make corrections/clarifications. Did not seem to generate new sections though.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * mostly as C-Class, which seems accurate. It is under 4 projects, of high importance to History of Science and the Derby Museum and Art Gallery.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Surprisingly, the sort of thing I think we would talk about would be the kinds of proto-evolutionary theory ideas Erasmus had and maybe his novel philosophical musings, and how he tried develop them in his life. This discussion was minimal on the talk page, but it was there, while none of it is brought up in the article itself it seems.

Talk page evaluation
Short, reflecting the quality of the article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * status...as what? It is an article and a pretty reliable one. Wouldn't help much beyond getting a general grasp of his life.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * There seems to be some cult-like interest in the Darwin-Woodbridge genealogy, so if that's your thing this article will satisfy.
 * it has good treatments of his published works, however they seem a little dubious (low citations, problems pointed out on the talk page).
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More research into substantiating claims about Erasmus's accomplishments.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is adequately developed, but ultimately incomplete.

Overall evaluation
This article is a work in progress, but covers all basic information on the subject.

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: