User:DylnC/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Philosophy

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am a philosophy student and the topics within peaked my interest.

Evaluate the article
The lead section acts as a great introduction to the topic. Philosophy covers a broad range of study and I feel as though this range is represented well in this section while still being concise.

The content is both relevant and neutral. Both the history of philosophy as well as the branches of philosophy are covered equally, both in length and neutrality.

This article is filled with sources from many different authors with many different perspectives and beliefs. As this article covers both history and methodology, it is fitting to see a large amounts of differing, academic sources supporting the content.

Not only is the topic well written, but is is also very easy to navigate. The authors of this article created a simple yet effective roadmap of which to move through this article. The headings clearly state what the section is about and the larger sections are separated as well.

The images in this article are engaging yet not overly distracting. The vast majority of the pictures are in the public domain and have a proper citation.

Most of the conversation happening in the talk page is about small semantical and grammatical issues. No one seems to be in disagreement with the content of the article. Instead, many people are slowly refining the language used in the article to make it cleaner and easier to understand.

This is a fantastic article filled with concise and descriptive content, clear organization, many reputable sources, and a passionate community who are constantly refining the work that has already been done. The one thing I may critique is the end of the article. At the end, the authors make a quick point about the lack of importance of philosophy in the modern age and do not expand on the claim at all. Mabye the majority of the article is meant to represent the perspective that philosophy is useful, but a clear and more expansive point at the end would most likely add to the article in a significant way.--DylnC (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)