User:ConnorReidVinson/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: Swoon hypothesis
 * I chose this article because I enjoy studying religion and the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ is perhaps the most interesting religious topics to study. Regardless of anyone's beliefs, it's an event that has been revered and celebrated for over 2,000 years and is one of the most important events in human history. This article discusses the Swoon Hypothesis, one of many naturalistic explanations for the resurrection of Jesus.

Lead

 * This article's lead is concise, but could use more. It opens with a clear definition of the Swoon Hypothesis and a short description of it's history and controversy. It's not too wordy and gives just enough information to understand what the article will address.

Content evaluation

 * The article's content stays completely relevant to the topic, giving its origin and listing the names of theologians and scholars who use this hypothesis, and offering opposing views. It provides a list of books and authors who write in favor of this theory, but doesn't include any books that counter it. Everything is up-to-date, because several scholars it mentions are currently popular today, such as William Lane Craig and Zakir Naik.

Tone and balance evaluation
The author remains fairly neutral throughout the article, giving several perspectives from both sides of the argument. It doesn't feel as if there is any bias towards a particular side and the supporting arguments are balanced by the opposing arguments. It's up to the reader to decide which makes the most sense given the article's information. However, there is a paragraph in the supporting arguments that appears to counter the claim and doesn't provide any outside sources. It appears biased and should either be omitted or moved to the counter arguments.

Sources and references evaluation
There are plenty of thorough sources such as books and scholarly articles. They are up-to-date and can all be accessed. However, as previously mentioned there is a paragraph that tries to counter a supporting claim without providing any source or citation. This is the only one I noticed though.

Organization evaluation
This is a well written article that presents the information in a clear way. It's easy to understand the content and the supporting and opposing ideas mentioned too. I found no spelling or grammatical errors while reading it. It's organized to present the origin and proponents of the Swoon Theory, as well as arguments for and against it. I found the article to be well-structured and easy to follow

Images and media evaluation
There is a lack of images in this article, which makes it a little dull in my opinion. I think adding images of early proponents like Karl Bahrdt or Karl Venturini would enhance the article. Mainly because these two scholars were the earliest to support this hypothesis. Maybe some more artistic images of the crucifix would add to the overall theme.

Talk page evaluation
This article is a part of two WikiProjects, Christianity/Jesus and ProjectSkepticism. There are a few external links provided in the Talk section that take you to a Christian website where counters to the Swoon Hypothesis are addressed in detail. The last comment is a correction to the original article where a reference was put under the wrong section.

Overall evaluation
This is a good article to understand the Swoon Hypothesis. It lists enough names and sources for readers to further study in depth. It's well-developed with few mistakes and I would consider it complete. There is enough information to have a good idea what this hypothesis is while offering some strengths and weaknesses.