User:Iconoclaste33/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: Wisdom literature
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Because it is a possible area for my thesis.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. The mention of pre-islamic Arabic wisdom literature.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The first paragraph is concise. The second begins with information that does not flow from one sentence to the next and that assumes too much of the reader. For example what are “mirrors for princes” and why do I are that it is an Islamic and Western secular cognate to wisdom literature?

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Somewhat. There is incongruence between the lead's first sentence and the “Classical texts” section, which is presented without explanation. Do Hesiod, Cicero and Marcus Aurelius count as “ancient Near East”ern people? They certainly count as Mediterranean.
 * Is the content up-to-date? It would be hard for it not to be, given the ancient subject matter.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The “Classical Texts” section does not appear to belong according to the definition of “Wisdom literature” given in the first sentence of the article. Further does the Islamic world belong to the ancient Near East? I think the definition needs to be changed to get to the core of what wisdom literature is. Then we can decide whether to limit it in time and space to the ancient Near East.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It depends on what one considers an underrepresented population and it depends if we wish to pursue the lead's definition of the subject, or the article's content. Islamic and Jewish texts may be considered to represent underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Sure.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Well, the definition, maybe?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The section on Biblical wisdom literature is larger, but it is probably justified. Basically, the whole article lacks information and even the biggest section of the article does not state what defines Biblical sapiential books, rather it just discusses the biblical canon, which is a separate article in wikipedia at Biblical canon. Underrepresented are wisdom literatures that are not even named, such as Babylonian wisdom literature.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Maybe. The first sentence of the second paragraph seems like a strong assertion of a legitimate comparison between two different literary genres, but without a citation. Also, it is perplexing that the sub-header “Septuagint” has a link to Chokhmah. There is no justification for a link to a Hebrew word in a section about a Greek text. Furthermore, the Chokhmah article has speaks of Kabbalah and Modern occultism which are quite remote from the Septuagint as containing works of wisdom literature.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Definitely not. There is a whole swath of modern Biblical scholarship dedicated to this topic. There are monographs and articles, probably entire journals. Same for Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian and other wisdom literatures. This article only cites five works.
 * Are the sources current? Well the average decade is 1980, so probably not.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? It's hard to be diverse with five. Whether historically marginalized individuals are included or not has little relevance unless the article is made to encompass more modern writings as “wisdom literature”, in which case, the answer would be no.
 * 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? The article is not clear.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I saw.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Not really. Besides the fact that it is a stump, the “Classical texts” section contains no description and mentions works that do not fit within the two headers to the article “Ancient Egyptian literature” and “Biblical wisdom literature and Jewish texts”

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Conversations about other literatures that could be included, conversations about the proper use of a term, about crosslinking and about an Encyclopaedia Britannica article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C-class. Yes. It is part of “WikiProject Bible” “"" Religious texts” “"" Judaism” “"" Ancient Neart East” “""Literature”
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I was told to choose this article myself. We did not discuss it in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Poor.
 * What are the article's strengths? Few.
 * How can the article be improved? More sections, actual description of what defines wisdom literature, so much more sourcing.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Poorly developped.

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: