User:Javasmells2000/Evaluate an Article

Aristotelian physics I chose to evaluate this article because it pertains to our course, and I find Aristotle's ideas and theories interesting to read.
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead concisely and clearly describes Aristotelian physics, and includes a brief description of the major sections. The lead does not include any information that is not present throughout the article, and the article adds further detail and diving into more topics than the lead. I found the lead to be concise and not overly detailed.


 * 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 articles content is relevant to the topic as it discusses Aristotelian methods, concepts, medieval commentary, life and death of Aristotelian physics, and modern evaluations. The article is up to date and was last edited on October 21st, 2020. I do not believe there is content missing, or in a place that is does not belong. The article does not relate to historically underrepresented topics as Aristotelian physics is taught is most curriculums, and the article does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

I would consider the article to be neutral. I did not notice any claims that would be heavily biased towards one position that was not cited by a primary or secondary source. I think that Aristotle's viewpoints on concepts of the sciences were underrepresented because they had limited quotes from knowledgeable sources. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position regarding Aristotelian physics.


 * 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

All facts regarding Aristotelian physics is backup by reliable secondary sources, and reflect literature. I would say the sources are not current since one was published in 1965 and the other two were published in 2001, but since Aristotle's ideas were published from 384-322 BCE many works would not be within the last ten years. The sources are not written by a diverse spectrum as there are only 2 different authors, but there are historically marginalized individuals included. The references are a diverse spectrum and also includes historically marginalized individuals were possible. The links that I checked were able to redirect to appropriate pages.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

In my opinion the article is well written, concise, clear, and easy to read. I did not notice any spelling or grammar errors. It is well organized and broken down using headers and sub-headers.


 * 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

The article includes a few images to enhance the understanding of specific topics, and are well captured, visually appealing images. I believe that the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.


 * 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

Behind the scenes there are several conversations about how to differentiate between Aristotelian ideas of cosmology and physics, and how to address the importance of Aristotle's work to the history of science. The article is rated C-class, and is apart of three WikiProjects. This article discusses the idea of Aristotle's four elements slightly differently than we discussed in class, and discusses at length the idea of aether. The four elements are discussed in the idea of natural place and natural motion, but also the terrestrial change that is able to transform using a two-step process.


 * 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 articles overall status is complete, but still is being edited as more topics are discussed. The articles strengths are being able to add additional knowledge for those that have an established idea of Aristotle's theories and being able to be read by individuals with no previous knowledge of Aristotle. The article could add more description of Aristotelian ideas. At the moment that article does not go in depth to Aristotelian methods about how he researched and established his discoveries. I would assess this article as well-developed. I can tell there was hard-work and research into building this page.


 * 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: