User:Jpegthebitmap/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Yaʿqūb ibn Ṭāriq

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it was a class C article on the list that had a variety of sources, and also because I find Abbasid Baghdad very interesting.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Content-wise, the information on the page is accurate but sparse. Most of the article lists the works of ibn Tariq, thought it is missing an explanation of what the books are about, as well as (if it is known) the European translators of these texts. The citations are very old, with one book being from 1900 and most of the other books cited being from the 1960s-1980s, and only one recent citation (2007).

Tone-wise, the article is written neutrally, thought it does go out of its way to include that ibn Tariq drew from Sanskrit work. All sources are also Western in origin.

Source-wise, the information in the article is old and disorganized. Only a third of the sources are from the most recent half of a century and two of the sources are in German and from the German Empire (which could have some strong biases in itself). Also, the citation structure of the page has 4 notes from 3 sources and the rest of the information comes from some nebulous space in the long further reading section, which makes the information in this article very difficult to evaluate.

Moving to the talk page, there are three discussions, of which two are unreplied to and one of which is addressing the lack of updates and the gaps I identified. The page is also part of several wikiprojects, including Iran, astrology, astronomy, and biographies of science and academia and the history of science, where it is rated as start or low. The talk discussions are as presented in class, though.