User:JustinOfBorg/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: Newtonian telescope
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Early exposure to astronomy is what I hold responsible for my interest in spaceflight and my choice to major in aerospace engineering, also historically relevant for class assignment.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead does briefly and accurately describe the subject of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The history and design of the telescope are both referenced, but the variants referenced later on are not mentioned in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The last line regarding the popularity with modern amateur telescope makers (whom I'm assuming are modern) and other contemporary references are not mentioned again in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is sufficiently concise while still providing an acceptable amount of detail.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? All content is relevant to the given topic with no noticeable irrelevancies.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Given the historical nature of this topic, all content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? One point made on the talk page is that another variant of the Newtonian telescope, the Dobsonian, is not represented, nor is the material that the outer casing is made from either historically or in the present day.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? While pros and cons of the design are discussed in detail, the information provided does not draw its own conclusions, so I would say that it is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? While some claims are preferential of certain positions, none are fanatically biased beyond the support of their cited information.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Viewpoints in the form of representation for one of the other telescope variants are not present, nor are any similar designs from other cultures.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, no persuasion is attempted.

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? While the most recent is from 2010, most sources are adequately recent.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Mostly yes, except for the one referenced in note 2, which is a British steroid shopping guide. Issue added to article's talk page.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Aside from a few spots that are heavy in technical jargon, the article is easy to follow.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no glaring spelling or grammar issues.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Given that no other variants than the Jones-Bird are listed, the article could be restructured to have this variant be its own section with standing equal to the history or advantages and disadvantages section.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, each image does contribute towards understanding the article.
 * Are images well-captioned? All of the images outside of the gallery are captioned well enough to make the image fairly understandable.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? All of the non-gallery images are shoved off towards the right margin, which might not be as helpful as having one of the images with labeled parts in a postion of more prominence.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Most of the conversations are productive and on topic, minus the one under the section "pi".
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This is level 5-vital in Technology, with a C-rating in the corresponding project. In Astronomy, it is of Mid-importance to the project and also of C-rating.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Wikipedia's grouping includes this telescope model's importance to not just technology but also astronomy, whereas the focus in class was specifically how it provided empirical data that allowed Newton to formulate his laws of motion.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article is in decent shape, with most of the historical and abstract data in good condition but with little in the way of references to its modern descendants.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article is strongest in presenting the history of the telescope as it relates to Newton and astronomy, with the section on design advantages and disadvantages excelling in analyzing the telescope's design.
 * How can the article be improved? Adding references to modern Newtonian telescopes would help, as would referencing any other variants, such as the aforementioned Dobsonian telescope.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say that this article is about 75% of the way there, as their is more to this item than its history and design, as well as the gap in other variants as referenced on the talk page.

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: