User:Imr254/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: Meditations on First Philosophy (Meditations on First Philosophy)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I have chosen this article to evaluate because Descartes introduced me to the study of perception. In my high school philosophy class, we discussed his first three meditations, all which concern the deception of one's senses. I always found this very intriguing and wanted to do more research on the topic as it pertains to my current perception class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead is not overly detailed and leads straight to the point of the content. It prepares the reader for the details in the subsequent sections. The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. It includes a brief description of the article's major sections. The lead does not include information that is not present in the article.

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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article's content is relevant to the topic and remains up-to-date. The only content that does not appear to be in the article is Descartes's own replies to critics's objections.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article remains mostly neutral. The only sentence that appears heavily biased is when the author states, "Along the way, he stumbles upon another claimed logical proof of God's existence.". The words "claimed logical" felt biased in referring to Descartes's argument for God's existence. I do not believe that there are any viewpoints that are over/underrepresented. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The article has plenty of footnotes and links to reliable secondary sources of information. The sources are high-quality and scholarly. Some articles have a bibliography and a list of further readings. The sources are current, and a few links that I checked out worked.


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * The structure is clear. The topics transition easily into one another, giving the reader an easily understood summary of Descartes's work. There are no grammatical errors. There are several headings and subheadings, images and diagrams at appropriate places, and references at the end. The only part that was hard for me to read was the "Objections and replies" subtopic, as it does not provide enough direct explanation into critics's arguments.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There are only two images: one of the book title and one of Descartes. They are captioned well, leading straight to the point of what the image displays. I would appreciate more photos to perhaps better breakdown certain arguments, but not totally necessary.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There are a few conversations regarding translations of the Latin phrase "cogito ergo sum". A few people disagree with the author's english translation of it. There is a conversation of the subtopic of Descartes's third meditation. Some feel that it is too overly explained, while somebody else is just pointing out that they disagreed with Descartes...which felt a little unrelated to an article evaluation. The article has been rated as B-class in quality and has a High-importance rating on it's importance scale. It is within the scope of WikiProject Books. Wikipedia discusses the topic of perception in a more philosophical sense as opposed to psychological. It does not go into any scientific research on the interpretation of the senses; it is more abstract.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article's overall status is pretty complete, providing a comprehensive overview of Descartes's intricacies and arguments. The various aspects of the topic are balanced well and well-developed. No single concept takes over the entire article, and all parts are covered. The most significant readings of the text get the most space. The article could be improved by perhaps adding in a diagram of a sound philosophical argument alongside Descartes's arguments concerning the existence of God. Another thing that could be improved is the organization of the subtopic "Objections and replies", as it does not provide enough analysis for the average reader to understand certain arguments.


 * 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?

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: