User:Crocs12345/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Almost all

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I was curious to look more closely at how mathematics is written about on Wikipedia. This is a page that was on the C-level lists of articles and it is a topic I am very familiar with so I felt more confident evaluating it. This article could be helpful to new math students. My initial impression of the article was that it is fairly short and it written in many different pieces, likely because this is a concept that means slightly different things in different contexts. I actually saw on the talk page that people have been discussing how to deal with that.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

I think the lead section is pretty good. It has a good introductory sentence and slowly gets more detailed. It is fairly short, but I think it still covers the basic idea. There are two small things, though, that could be fixed about the lead section. First, it mentions "almost no" which is a relevant idea, but does not actually show up later in the body of the article. Also, it mentions that the meaning depends on mathematical context but there is no description of what sorts of mathematical fields to which this idea is relevant and what information will be covered in the rest of the article.

I think the body of the article is composed well. It is clear and only contains information relevant to the topic. It has a good structure with a small intro and then some examples for each section. I noticed a few typos. This article does not explicitly deal with one of wikipedia's equity gaps, though it still is interesting to consider both that this article exists and that there are so many similar articles in existence as well (they are linked throughout).

The article seems to be written in a fairly neutral way. I wonder how the specific examples and the detail involved in different sections is related to the specialization of those who have written the article, but I do not know enough about different fields myself to adequately judge that.

The links in the article work and the sources are mostly academic articles. The cited authors are mostly white and male, which certainly demonstrates a citation bias. However, that is sadly reflective of the field in general.

It is well written and broken down into sections well. I only noticed a small typo in the writing.

There is only one image in the article. Its caption is descriptive, but I think that it could be better connected to the other examples. In general, the addition of other images would assist readers in understanding the subject matter.

The Talk Page shows that people have been discussing how this page differs from "almost everywhere," which is a very related topic. There is also some discussion regarding the accuracy and wording of one particular section. This article is rated C level.

Overall the article is helpful to users, but it could be improved by the few small changes I have mentioned such as adding images to the body and including an overview of the sections in the lead. I do appreciate how clear and concise the article is, specifically the use of examples for clarification.