User:BucketFro/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.


 * Philosophy of technology: (link)
 * It combines the two topics Philosophy and Technology. Both of which, I am interested and passionate about, so I wanted to review an article that combines them.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. It gives an overview of the range of topics the idea explores.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes. There is really only one major section. It provides sufficient information on the origins of the phrase and study.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No. All of the information in the Lead is present in the article's main body.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise. It could arguably provide more detail, but since it is a broad topic it gets the job of a Lead done.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. It looks back into the history of the philosophy of technology. It provides important figures and the contribution of their works to the study
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes. Its history section goes as recent as the twentieth century.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think it is missing a lot of content. Although it is a broad topic, there are a lot of other possible topics it is connected to that it does not mention. Considering that technology has boomed in recent decades, the weight of its content does not accurately reflect the philosophy of that boom. With the recent rise of the internet and its effect on society, I think it is lacking in its discussion of that.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It does not mention much of the equity gaps or historical inequalities. Considering that technology has always been a driving force in furthering history, mentioning these faults should be important to understand its history.

Content evaluation
Overall, the content is severely lacking. Philosophy of technology is a broad topic, and many of the sub topics it generates likely deserve their own wiki page. But, it does not even mention many of these topics and could be a good "home base" so to speak in directing others toward more focused subjects under the broad study of the Philosophy of technology. The technological boom of recent decades carries much more weight on the overall history of technology, but the content of the article does not reflect this. It could use more information regarding the recent history of technology and its implications on the philosophy. Also, since the history of technology is a large driving force of society, it does not represent the faults it has had as far as prejudice and inequality. As I said, overall, the article is lacking a lot of information that the philosophy of technology encompasses.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes. It seems to be factually based, and does not have obvious biases in topic.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, it all seems to report factual information. Any claims made in the article seem to be reports of other philosopher's claims.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are likely quite a bit a viewpoints not mentioned. Considering how broad a topic the philosophy of technology is, it is lacking in representation of the various possible viewpoints.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No. It seems to be unbiased and equally reporting from both sides.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, the tone and balance are neutral. It does not have any clear biases. Any lack of information or over representation of information is likely due to the article's need for more attention. It is balanced in what it has, but from a broader perspective, it lacks much of the information that is possible.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Most of the facts are backed by reliable sources. There are only three claims with "citation needed" links. There could be more sources included.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No. There are likely a lot more sources that could be used to substantiate the information included. It is mostly historical information, so it is understandable that relatively few sources would be used despite such a broad topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * They are mostly from recent decades. There are few if any sources over 50 years old.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * There are a variety of authors, but it could have more women and colored authors cited. Some of the authors cited are also the topic mentioned, so that may reflect some source bias.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links I checked work.

Sources and references evaluation
Overall, there are a lot of topics the article lacks, and likewise there are a lot of sources it lacks. There are a few number of sources for what is claimed. A lot of the authors are the same and there are few women cited.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is concise, but some of the writing is unclear in terms of relevance or importance to the overall subject. It is logical and simple for a person like myself who has no prior knowledge on the topic. Some of the discussed information could be more focused in terms of objective and relevance to the subject.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I am aware of.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It is organized logically as a history of the philosophy, but it could be further broken down to include more topics and more focused fields. Overall, the history of the philosophy is organized logically and linearly, but it could include specific sub topics that discuss the impact of specific historical events or important works.

Organization evaluation
Overall, the organization is not as detailed as it could be. The main subject of the article is the history of the philosophy of technology. It is organized logically and chronologically. It could include more organization and focused discussions regarding certain historical events, works, or important figures discussed in the history.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is one image of a minor figure.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * It has the figure's name.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Considering it is a portrait of a man from the 1600's, I do not believe it violates Wikipedia's copyright.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes. It is off to the side and does not get in the way of the writing.

Images and media evaluation
Overall, it is not very encompassing in the visual media aspect. It is about the philosophy of technology, so one could argue that visual aid is unimportant to it. It is not necessary regarding the limited topics discussed, but for future conversations that could be included, images could be very helpful to understanding.

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 of the conversations included are in regards to the direction of the article. They talk about including other important figures and information. They include discussions over organization, clarification, and relevance to the topic.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is apart of some WikiProjects, but has a "Start" rating overall.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It is very reflective of how we have briefly talked about it in class. It is very Eurocentric, and does not include much if any contributions of the East or other regions. It very focused on the Western impact or view on the philosophy of technology, despite the historical contributions other regions have made.

Talk page evaluation
Overall, it is lacking in attention. It is good that there are discussions regarding the overall direction, future changes, and inclusion. There is much more to discuss, however, regarding what is included in its content and organization.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It is indeed a "Start" article, but it has a decent foundation to include more information. While it mentions important-- although limited-- figures and works, there is a lot more that could be written about the history and school of thought of the philosophy of technology.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It provides a range of historical figures that date back as far as ancient Greece. It starting to include more recent, relevant topics and discussions.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It can be improved in a number of ways. It could have better organization of topics and be less history based. It could include more non-Western authors and contributions.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say that it is very underdeveloped.

Overall evaluation
The article is lacking in a lot of ways. It is very history based in content, but in that regard it only includes Western influence. It could have more content in terms of the topics and discussions related to the topic. It could go more in depth as far as the significance of certain historical events. It needs more recent topics to talk about considering the impact recent technological advancements have made, and the ethical and social consequences they may bring to the table. Overall, it is lacking in content, organization, representation, and relevance.

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: