User:Katharinearodriguez/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: The Bible Unearthed
 * I chose this article for various reasons, but the main one being that I love religious studies. Here at FIU, I actually took a couple of courses on the topic and found it rather interesting. So, when I found this article on a book based on the Christian Bible, I thought I would do a deep dive into seeing if it was accurate and lent itself to helping students and learners accurately learn about this topic.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
Yes, the lead indeed introduces the book, its writers and the overall theme of what The Bible Unearthed is about. The lead simply states what the article will be about, but does not highlight major sections of the article. Since the lead was so short, it only covered the title of the book and what the book was covering. The lead was almost too concise where I wish there would have been a greater introduction to what the rest of the article was going to entail.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The article's content is extremely relevant to the topic where it just summarizes what the book is about. The content seems up to date, however, this article is based on a book written in 2002. I do not think there is content missing, the article is basically a summary of the book and the major subjects within it. It also includes a "reception" section which basically was the reviews of the book given by scholars.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
Yes, I believe the tone of the article is rather neutral due to the fact that it simply summarizes and explains the book. However, since I have never read this book, I would have to look into the Talk page (ahead) in order to discuss if others say it was biased or not. Honestly, there is no bias toward any position, but rather just an explanation of what the book is about. With this being said, there are no overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints. The most biased or persuasive the article tries to get is in the reception section where scholars give their positive or negative opinion on the book.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All the facts in the article are very much backed up by the book itself and it includes helpful citations for readers to understand the content. The sources are thorough and they reflect the literature almost to a "t" due to the fact that the article is basically a book summary. The sources are again relevant to the time the book was written, so yes, they are current in a sense. Also, all the links work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
Yes, the article is very well written, although very long because it goes into deep details as to what the book is about making the article more of a summary. I did not catch any spelling errors or grammatical errors, and the article is very well organized separated into major points of the topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
The article includes five images of the book cover, maps, artifacts and timelines which were helpful to knowing what The Bible Unearthed is about. All the images are well-captioned and linked. After checking each image, they do adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. I wouldn't say the images are laid out in a visually appealing way. I would've liked to see them all aligned to the left or right.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The main conversation discussed on the talk page was that the article was much more of a summary rather than a plot overview. There was overwhelming talk about how it was too long and how it should have been more brief. It does make a couple of very minor corrections on the language used on the main article suggesting that certain terms be changed to others. The article is rated as a Start-Class which means it is incomplete and needed a more robust discussion and purpose to it. It is a part of 3 WikiProjects: Archeology, Bible and Books all rated Start-class, low importance. The low importance refers to the fact that this book is very much subject oriented and does not fall in a broad range of topic fields. This Wikipedia article discusses the topic differently by assessing the facts and really giving opinionated, yet valid remarks.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
I think the articles overall status is informative, but could be more concise. The strengths of this article is that it is very much book oriented and gives the reader a very clear understanding of what the book is about. However, it could be improved by being shorter and including more big picture topics rather than smaller details. The article was well-developed but again could eliminate some information and add some factual conversation.