User:ClarenceTheShark/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Maragheh observatory

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article in particular because i was intrigued by the building and its history as well as the visual appearance of the observatory. I don't know if why i chose it necessarily matters but it seemed like it would be an interesting read. My first impression of the article was honestly kind of surprised, there is more history to this observatory than I thought.

Evaluate the article
 Lead Section 


 * The introductory sentence provides a quick and concise description of what the article is about as well as some information on the history behind it.
 * Not everything in the article is brought up in the introductory paragraph, it acts as more of an into than a table of contents.
 * It is relatively quick and concise, only being two short paragraphs long.
 *  Content 
 * It appears than all, if not most, of the content in this article is relevant to the topic, as well as up to date since many of the sources date back only three to five years ago.
 * As far as this article dealing with one of Wikipedia's equity gap, it does not appear to be dealing with any of the content that would be applied for an equity gap.
 * It appears that all of the content proved in the article is relevant to the topic of the article.
 *  Tone and Balance 
 * This article appears to be from a neutral point of view, as it is more or less only on the topics of the history of the observatory itself and some of the astronomers who worked there.
 * It does not appear to be particularly biased towards a certain person, Al-Tusi may have amore information on him than any other astronomer on the list but this could be because he is the most well known.
 * There does not appear to be any viewpoints being over or underrepresented, as well as no minority or fringe viewpoints really being represented.
 * There really is no persuasion occurring in this article
 *  Tone and Balance 
 * This article appears to be from a neutral point of view, as it is more or less only on the topics of the history of the observatory itself and some of the astronomers who worked there.
 * It does not appear to be particularly biased towards a certain person, Al-Tusi may have amore information on him than any other astronomer on the list but this could be because he is the most well known.
 * There does not appear to be any viewpoints being over or underrepresented, as well as no minority or fringe viewpoints really being represented.
 * There really is no persuasion occurring in this article
 *  Sources and References. 
 * The sources for this article appear to be backing up there respective points as well as being up to date and from reliable sources.
 * Some of the authors of these references and sources are written by what appears to be people from the general area around the observatory itself.
 * There doesn't appear to be many other sources of information that would be better than the references provided.
 *  Organization and Writing Quality 
 * There does not appear to be many or any spelling mistakes present, as well as the article being relatively easy to read.
 * The one thing i do not like is that the current status of the observatory is almost right at the beginning, where as I think it would be a good idea to place this section at the end of the article.
 *  Images and Media 
 * The images accompanying the article are well captioned as well as providing visuals for the corresponding section.
 * It appears the images do follow Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 *  Talk Page 
 * Many of the talk page topics are slight adjustments to the article such ass slight section additions and improvements as well as some external links being modified.
 *  Overall Impressions 
 * This seems to be a pretty well written and researched article, with all the additions done by the Wikipedia community it appears that it has gotten much more factually accurate as well as smoother to read.