User:Hollyb98/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Meditation

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose the meditation article because it is what I am currently most interested in studying and learning about. If I am able to improve the Wikipedia article concerning meditation, then it would require me to have a better more scientific understanding of it-- which would prove benificial. My initial impression of the page was noticing the way meditation is so closely related to history and can lean towards religious views. I am hoping to bring more balance to the article by adding more research into different types of meditation as well as address concerns and missing areas that they have pointed out on the talk page.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead sentence gives a brief synopsis on the main practice and goal of meditation. However, in the first sentence it mentions a specific type of meditation (mindfulness) making the first sentence too narrow for the broad subject of meditation.

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? (It shouldn't.) Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead paragraphs do not clearly and concisely iterate the articles main sections and hints to things that are not in the article. The lead also leaves sections of the article out. The lead section mentions the broad practice and goal of meditation, mentions meditation is part of religious traditions, where it began, and not religious uses for meditation and their benefits.

Content:

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The content of this article is pertinent to the subject of meditation. While it may delve into further sub topics of meditation it provides a well rounded understanding of the topic of meditation.

Is the content up-to-date?
 * The article has had constant edits as well as discussions. It seems to be a well kept up article. Some of the references seem to need to be refreshed by more current studies.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is some missing content including talk about the Jhanas, enlightenment, reincarnation (which is a common belief in Buddhism), breathwork, as well as other intricacies that are not mentioned in each section.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article seems to cover a great many bases and with deeper research I may find that there has been an underrepresented group. However, at this time, I am unaware of how the article could increase representation among underrepresented populations.

Tone and balance:

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article is neutral in most areas. However, there does seem to be a biased in the type of meditation represented. The article does lean toward "mindfulness" mediation which is primarily gaining traction in western culture. The article briefly covers additional meditation practices but seems to have a bias toward western ideologies of meditation.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Mindfulness meditation has been overrepresented in this article. In the talk page there are tasks for improving sections of the article including: Qigong, tai chi chaun, vipassana movement, pure land Buddhism, and to add Isha Foundation and "meditation movement" that is currently gaining popularity.

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * There is not a written differentiation between what is mainstream and less practiced. The article does not clearly state the level of popularity for many topics in the page-- making it appear more biased.

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * While this article does not persuade the reader to follow any specific type of meditation, it does mention only some specific methods in which to meditate. This leaves the reader with only a partial view of what is available to them.

Sources and references:

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * While most facts and statements have multiple sources of reliable information, not all are backed by a secondary source of information.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There is a source that is labeled "unreliable medical source". I am curious to see if there is a better alternative source for the information they are looking for.

Are the sources current?
 * The sources are current with only a few needing updating or further investigation to see if they are peered reviewed articles.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I'm unsure of how to answer this question, however, with the multitude of sources referenced in this article I would find it surprising if the writers were able to find narrow variability in authors. It does seem that they have been able to show a diverse array of sources to back their facts and statements.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * While most references are published peer-reviewed articles, there will be some websites that will have a better alternative source that it can be replaced with.

Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links seem to be in working order.

organization and writing quality:

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article does seem to be easy to read and clear. it would be more concise with some of the contents, and leaves some to be desires in other portion of the contents.

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, during my read-throughs I have not found any grammatical or spelling errors of note.

Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The general outline of the article follows a logical path, however, the article does not seem to be well organized throughout. Nor is the path of the article well laid out in the lead paragraph.

Images and Media:

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Not all of the images enhance the understanding. i.e. when talking about the meditation position (full-lotus, half lotus, kneeling, walking, etc.) they have a picture of students in desks with their head bowed in meditation instead of showing examples.

Are images well-captioned?
 * The captions of the images are sufficient to the photos.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No, some photos are under public domain, however Wikipedia requires that you must include a "United States Public Domain tag" as well. I will have to research more into how to do this.

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The images are laid out in the more appealing way for this article.

Talk Page Discussion:

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is talk of the introduction and how it may not be concise enough and lends itself to mindfulness meditation instead of a general overview. there is discussion of which references are not worth putting in the article. In addition, there seems to be discussion on ways to make the meditation article more concise and straightforward.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated a B-Class. I'm unsure if it was involved in any WikiProjects, however is has veen included in two Wiki Education assignments in August 2022, and September 2022.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * No, the article and the talk page were both accurately described in the training courses and as well as my own understanding of the topic.

Overall impressions

What is the article's overall status?
 * The articles overall status is a level-3 vital article in philosophy and rated as B-class by WikiPorject Vital Articles.

What are the article's strengths?
 * The article succeeds in covering a wide array of topics that explain the practice and orgin of meditation. In certain areas it goes into great details on history and practice. meanwhile, it seems to miss topics that would be seemingly integral to the understanding of the broad spectrum of meditation.

How can the article be improved?
 * The article can be improved by detailing, updating, and adding missing information to the article.

How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is well developed, but lacking sufficient details to help the reader truly understand the full scope of meditation.