User:ImHereForClass/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: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equant
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose this article because it is an idea that Ptolemy invented, which we studied in class.

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 is written clearly and concisely, which is also represented in its introductory sentence, which describes the article’s topic in short very well. The lead does not include information not present in the article, but it only somewhat covers the sections of the article without explicitly naming them, and it does not address the “Criticisms” section.

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 content of the article is very relevant to the topic and covers the complete history of it, including what was believed before it, what ideas replaced it, and what ideas it was comprised of. Although there may be too much information on what theories were believed before it that it might have replaced, there is no content that is out of place. The topic is a rare one to discuss, so it contributes to filling out Wikipedia’s gaps of knowledge well. In addition, Wikipedia’s equity gaps are addressed through the inclusion of the work of astronomers from many different places, including Persia.

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 appears to be completely neutral, with no preference for any subject mentioned. Ample attention is given to each subject, including criticism of the article’s topic.

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
Sources used are mostly good, with many different authors and materials being used, however, there is a citation from Pliny the Elder for a fact about his own work, making it a primary and not a secondary source. Also regarding sources, there was a lack of sources compared to how many facts were given. More sources would be required to consider this page wholly accurate and trustworthy, in my opinion. All the links that I checked worked properly.

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
the article is very concise and clear, giving only information that is needed to understand the topic and it’s importance. It also seems devoid of any grammatical errors, at least that I could see. The way the article is broken up makes the topic much easier to understand and the organization is helpful and not unnecessary.

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 contains one image, which is a diagram of Ptolemy’s planetary movement theory, which includes the equant. It is a public domain image so it adheres to copyright policies. It is placed well next to the information referring to it and in a virtually appealing way, but it is the only image in the entire article. I think that the article could use more images to be top ore engaging and exciting.

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 talk page was comprised mostly on questions being asked about the article regarding information that was not included, as well as discussions on parts of the article that were unclear or could use editing. Every question was answered and proposed edits confirmed. The article must be rated well, as there is no banner, but I could not find a formal rating. Wikipedia discusses equants differently form the way we discussed it in class in that it focuses more about the idea independently, rather than as part of the whole of Ptolemy’s work, which Was how it was generally discussed in class.

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
The article appears complete in content, and it does very well in providing context and reasoning for the theory itself in a clear and conscience way. The article could use many more sources cited and images. I would say that because of the two weaknesses of the article, it is slightly under-developed as a whole, even though the information in it seems developed enough.

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: