User:Escallaway/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.


 * Name of article: Irreligion in Australia
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. It relates to the religious scope of our class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It summarizes, rather than overviews. Goes too deep too quickly
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Overly detailed

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? It includes data from the 2006, 2011, and 2016 census.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes the section about religion in politics is errant

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? No
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article is entirely biased towards atheists.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? It presents atheism as the better choice between religiosity and atheism
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Yes: atheism. It mentions prominent and prestigious atheists to try to sway readers into admiring atheism

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No; they mention The Australian Book of Atheism, which a book written by atheists for atheists
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No it is laden with statistics that take a while to break down. If the author wants to include so many numbers, they should organize them into a more legible table
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No- it breaks down the information based on sources, rather than qualitative categories that give a more holistic picture of irreligion in Australia.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Moderators seem concerned by the bias of the article
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated C-class with the rank of mid-importance
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Not all the comments are signed

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Needing improvement
 * What are the article's strengths? All the information is sourced from factual origins.
 * How can the article be improved? It could include more information from the religious perspective and not present irreligion as the norm
 * 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 — ~Elizabeth Callaway


 * Link to feedback: