User:Chunt25/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Historical thinking

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it directly coorelates to my discipline as a history teacher. At my school we always push to get student to think like a historican and this in one of the key phrases we like to use when discussing our educational philosphies.

Evaluate the article
Lead:

The article titled "Historical Thinking" has an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. On the other hand I do not believe that the article's lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections, includes information that is not present in the article and is overly detailed.

Content:

In the article, I believe that the content is relavant to the topic, and is up to date. In my opinion there is no content in the article that does not belong, however some content may be in the wrong spot. This article does not zdress any topics that deals with historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance:

Although most of this article is nuetral, there are some points in this reading that the author does make boold claims trying to pursuade the reader to think one way or another. I dont think the author's viewpoints are overrepresented in this article, however one can definitley see the viewpoints the author has on this topic. I do believe that the author tries to persuade the reader to think that "textsbooks are bad" at points of this reading, however it isn't overbearing.

Sources and References:

Not all facts are backed by resources that contain the information the author is using. I do believe that the author did use thorough sources i.e scholarly articles, newspapers and books. The sources are definitley current, only one sources predates 2000, while most of them are written post 2010. The article's sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors and does not include any historically marginalized. individuals. I also believe that their are better sources to be found on this topic, especially in the "Analyze Case and Consequence" section of the article where the author used a random website.

Organization and Writing Quality:

I do think the article was written consicley and is easy to read for the reader. It is broken down into subsections and contaisn no grammatical errors.

Images and Media:

The article contains no images or media referencing this topic.

Talk Page Discussion:

There is definitley some conversations happening on the talk page of this article. Most of the talk page discussions are authors adding sections to this article and buffing up the resources used. This article is rated in the "C-class" and is of interest to the WikiProjects titles Psycology, Philosophy, Education and Skepticism. This topic's discussion differs a bit from what I have been taught about historical thinking. It discusses different styles of historical thinking that I did not know exhisted and elaborates on them well.

Overall Impressions:

This article is an ongoing project. I believe that this article could use some work with inline citations for bold statements the author chooses to use. If these facts casn be found and used to back up the statements the article would be on its way to recieving a much better rating. I do believe the article does a good job at bringing up and discussing different styles to teach historical thinking however more sources can be found and used to help further back the authors discussion. I think this article would garner an underdeveloped grade on completeness.