User:DPUAlbany/Evaluate an Article

Article Evaluation Following Template Below:

Name: Philosophy of mind

For this assignment, I was told to chose an article relevant to my major. This is an area of philosophy of interest to me, and I have recently taken coursework on it.

Lead:

The lead describes the topic as concisely as possible, though it requires some background knowledge to understand.

Yes.

Not at all.

For a philosophy student, frustratingly concise, but for this purpose, ideal.

Content:

The content is absolutely relevant.

At a glance, the content is up to date; it covers the topics I did in my recent coursework.

Not only is there an absence of a lack of content, it is wonderfully subdivided.

Tone and Balance:

The article is both neutral, and surprisingly balanced. It rightly shys away from, though correctly includes, neuroscience and psychology, and balances work within each of the philosophical considerations.

Sources and References:

Organization:

The article is wonderfully organized, well written, and grammatically sound. As before, well subdivided.

Images:

Images are well selected, and well captioned. Perhaps half add to understanding, but due to the subject matter, this seems to be as it should be.

Talk Page:

Checking an archive, there is a surprising amount of conversation behind the scenes, ranging from hard philosophical discussion to if a particular image is the best choice.

It is rated vital / level 4, and is a part of several wiki projects.

It doesn't, as it's a pretty well developed article.

The articles strength is in it's ability to succinctly cover a large amount of material. I might add some depth on the branches of potential routes of understanding, or begin pages for each in their own right and add links to this page. This article is absolutely complete.

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: (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: