User:Chipsnsalsalover/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: Aristotelian physics
 * I chose to evaluate this article because it is a C-class article that it within the scope of our class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The beginning is overly detailed.

Lead evaluation
Overall, it is a good lead. However, the first paragraph uses many parenthetical phrases that makes it hard to read, so the lead should be made more concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content seems complete.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, people historically greatly discussed Aristotelian physics.

Content evaluation
The content is good.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Tone and balance evaluation
This article seems to have no tonal problems.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


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

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are good.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * There are some issues with this article. There are many block quotes and parentheticals, which make the article harder to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not notice any grammatical errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

Organization evaluation
The article could be made more concise. The lead and the medieval commentary section in particular ought to be made more concise.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and media evaluation
I think more images could be added to the article to make it more appealing and understandable.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Some argue that the article is too biased towards a modern perspective on Aristotle, while others argue that Aristotle's incorrectness should be made more clear.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is part of the philosophy, history of science, and physics/history wikiprojects. The article is C-class.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * People seems to be a lot more hostile when discussing Aristotle in the talk page. People seem to absolutely love him or hate him.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page is hard to read, but I can tell there is a lot of fighting in it.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article feels very superficial, and I feel like it is not very helpful when learning about Aristotelian physics.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It has lots of content that is organized well.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It can be more concise to convey information more clearly.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article needs to be better written with better prose so that it can be clearer.

Overall evaluation
The article has lots of information, but needs to be more concise.

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: