User:Cting12/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.


 * Bildwissenschaft

I have chosen to evaluate this article because it was listed under the academic disciplines page and it had the most interesting name out of all the them so I wanted to learn more.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

Lead evaluation
The lead does include an introductory sentence that lets the reader know what categories Bildwissenschaft falls under. The article's major sections are "Overview", "History", and "Theorists and practitioners," and the lead has sentences that do go briefly over the main sections and their sub-sections. For this lead, there is no information that is not present in the major sections down below, it is very concise and only contains the main talking points

Content evaluation
The article's content is very relevant to the topic and the main points listed in the lead. It mentions that the topic is an academic discipline in the German-speaking world, but it doesn't really mention any of the studies done on it now. It is up to date in terms of the content it already has, but overall the content could include more information about the discipline in the 2010s.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding question

Tone and balance evaluation
The main point of the article is to recognize the different theorists and practitioners that have contributed to the field, and it does a good job of not appearing biased towards any of the theorists. It also gives around the same amount of text to each different theorist, so it feels like every theorist's ideas are given time to shine. The only sort of 'bias' I could find in the article would be in the Klaus Sachs-Hombach sub-section where they cite one scholar claiming Hombach's view is the best.

Sources and references evaluation
One of the sources doesn't have a link whatsoever which is a little strange, but the two books with dois are correctly taken to some kind of database with the book listed.

Organization evaluation
Overall the article is very well written, no noticeable grammatical or spelling errors. Everything is also broken down into a clear and concise order so the organization overall is on point.

Images and media evaluation
No images on this Wikipedia page, perhaps the editors could have included some pictures of the important theorists who contributed to the discipline.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

Talk page evaluation
There are no talks currently on the page, however it is part of the Austria Wiki Project. There probably is low traffic because it is kind of a niche topic, so it has been rated start-class and low-important on the the project's different scales respectively.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding question

Overall evaluation
Overall strength is definitely the non-biased way or reviewing the history of the academic discipline. However, the one thing I feel it's lacking is some kind of information about it right now in Germany. For example, are students still learning about it and talking about more recent theorists for it. If that part is added I feel like the article will truly be complete.

Optional activity

 * Link to feedback: