User:Dawsjw20/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.


 * Definition of religion (Definition of religion)
 * I chose to evaluate this article because I plan to minor in religious studies during my four years of undergraduate education.

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?

Lead evaluation
Yes, but, it seems that the introductory sentence works a little bit more as a thesis than an introduction.

Yes, it dips into the general topics to be presented in the page.

No.

The lead is very concise and does not contain too much information. It rather presents what will be delved into deeper in the rest of the page.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
Yes, the articles content is relevant to the topic.

Yes, the content is up-to-date.

No, everything that is on the page belongs where it is and nothing seems to be missing.

No, it rather speaks about the definitions of religion and how they differ by people, where modern western constructs very much differ from that of classical.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation
Yes.

No.

Between the two modern western and classical definitions section, which are the only two sides, they seem to be written quite even in length to one other, but in very different styles.

No.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
From the ones that I checked, they were reliable.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, there is a variety of authors included.

Yes.

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?

Organization evaluation
Yes.

From my reading through it, I did not notice any errors.

Yes, it is split in a way that reflects major points and is easy for the reader to follow.

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?

Images and media evaluation
It does include images, but I think that the amount may be a little bit scarce. I think that some more could definitely be added.

Yes, all of the pictures are well-captioned.

Yes, they all adhere to the copyright regulations.

Yes they are visually appealing in the manner they are laid out.

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?

Talk page evaluation
There are not any conversations that I see going on currently behind this topic.

I am not exactly sure where it says its rating, but every WikiProject it is a part of is rated C-class, which it is part of WikiProject Religion, Sociology, and Anthropology.

We have not exactly gone over this in class, but I felt that it was kind of similar to linguistics and the way things are spoken differently around the world, kind of like how different definitions of religion are prevalent world-wide and through time.

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?

Overall evaluation
I think the article is in very good condition, but someone who is very well-established in studying this sort of topic could definitely add to this to make it a little bit longer and more informative of a wider range of views.

The articles strengths, I feel, are the sheer number of definitions it includes. I also believe that what it includes is very concise and well-written.

I think the article can be improved by including more definitions, since you can never have too many on a page about definitions, and I think it could use a few more photos; having only three is a little scarce.

I would say that the article is overall well-developed. I would not say by any means that it is underdeveloped whatsoever, but there could definitely be additions made.

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: