User:Dylan Thomas Clark/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.


 * Singularitarianism (Singularitarianism)
 * The singularity and its adherents have popped up in various discussions I've been following about the future of AI.

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
The Lead sentence concisely captures what singulatarianism is. It does not include a list of sections outside of the table of contents. The Lead is mostly a definition and clarification. The Lead includes a brief mention of the differences between Singularitarianism and other kinds of futurism that isn't expanded on in the main body of the text. The way it is differentiated came off as somewhat vague. The Lead is very concise. It could function as a quick resource entry in its own right.

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
The articles content is on topic. As far as I know, the only major development that has occurred in Singularitarianism that isn't mentioned is that it has been adopted by neoractionaries. Though that is admittedly a complex issue in and of itself. The "Reception" section really only covered two lines of criticism, that the singularity is far-fetched and that it amounts to a secular religion. It's a very short article. It doesn't really address anything about the singularity in relation to underrepresented populations or topics. This stuck out a bit since Singularitarianism seems to be the more politically forward side of the singularity discussion. However, the greater Transhumanism topic it's listed as being a part of also lists topics such as postgenderism and abolitionism.

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
The article maintains a neutral tone throughout. The article seems to presuppose that the reader has some grasp on the singularity. As mentioned, the "Reception" section only really touches on the unlikeliness of the singularity and how Singularitarianism has become a secular religion. It doesn't delve into viewpoints beyond that. However, the main article on the singularity does go into further social and political criticisms. There isn't much mention of other, similar movements outside of the U.S. and Europe. There's not an obvious attempt at persuasion.

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
The introduction uses two quotes that both need citations. The sources are fairly thorough for something brief and introductory. It's mostly direct references to the works written by people who've contributed to the movement or articles and criticisms written about them. The sources are current as far as I know. But no, the cited authors are not diverse. The most prominently featured are AI researchers/theorists who are already well-known. I clicked on ten links. They worked.

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
It is easy to read and well organized. It straightforwardly moves from Lead to Definition to History to Reception. I didn't notice any glaring grammatical issues. I put it through a grammar checker that said too many commas were being used and found a couple of word choice issues, additional spaces, incorrect punctuations. But none of it was distracting while I was reading it.

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
The article has no images.

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
The longest conversation on the Talk Page is on Green anarchism. Most of the other conversations center on how to discuss Singularitarianism as a religion. Interestingly, there is some mostly unaddressed discussion of Singularitarianism's relationship to futurism. It's part of the transhumanism project. We haven't covered Singularitarianism in class, but I'd be interested in coming back to it when we start getting into Feminist Futurism and the like.

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
This article is a good, brief introduction to Singularitarianism for anybody who just needs a very general grasp of it. It's main strength is its concision. It hits the major points in its history. I'd improve it with some clarity on its relationship to futurism as well as a more robust "Reception" section. It's well enough developed if we treat it as a piece of the transhumanism section as a whole. It wouldn't work as well if it were on its own, but its fine as a sub-category.

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: