User:JohnWoods1025/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Galileo affair

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I come from a Roman Catholic family and I find the coexistence of science and religion to be incredibly interesting. After reading the article, I found it to be very thorough and informative. There were a lot of great insights into the situation and I felt that I understood what was going on during the time.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, within the first two sentences of the article I can clearly identify what the main topic of discussion will be for the article.


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the lead section does not describe what the remaining sections of the article will discuss as it relates to the topic.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No, the information is consistent throughout the piece.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? I believe that the lead is a little overly detailed, but it is not totally overwhelming. The information presented demonstrates thorough research by the author.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the content further describes the severity of the situation and helps the reader understand why this issue is so important.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, given that this event took place around 400 years ago, there is not a lot of new information that could be added to the article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think that all the information presented in the article did an excellent job of painting the whole picture. This is a complex issue and that demands the author to take a multilateral approach to presenting it.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, this articlce focuses on the Roman Catholic Church in Europe.
 * Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view? Yes, the intent of the author writing this article is to inform the audience, rather than sway them a certain way.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, I felt that the author presented everything in a neutral tone.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes, I would have liked to see more of what Galileo had to say on the matter instead of reading about what other notable figures at the time thought.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes, Galileo was definitely in the minority school of thought during this time period. This article demonstrates his willingness to fight against the establishment to prove what was correct.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the author does a good job of writing a strictly didactic piece.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are many academic sources that have been cited that strengthen the ethos of the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they have hyperlinked the sources so that the reader can do further research.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, despite the event taking place over 400 years ago, many of the sources listed have been published within the past 10-20 years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the sources indicate that there is a tremendous amount of diversity in the authors cited.
 * 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.) I a lot of the sources listed and many of them come from journals, websites, and scholars of whom I have heard of before.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the article is well-written and easy to follow. There is a lot of information but it is spread out throughout the article and makes it easier on the reader.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not find any.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is well organized and the sections cover the most important points on the issue. I think that the section titled "Initial controversies" could have been a bit more concise, as to delve deeper into the issue at hand, but it did not subtract from the author's intent.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, they were very specific.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There were no conversations going on behind the scenes on this topic.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article was a part of many WikiProjects. These projects include: WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject European History, WikiProject Italy, and WikiProject Roman Catholicism.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Not so different.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? The article was well written and very insightful.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article is incredibly detailed and provides the viewpoints of the major actors in the historical event.
 * How can the article be improved? The article can be improved by focusing more on the man Galileo himself rather than everyone else.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? This article was very developed and contains a lot of solid information that told the story in its entirety.