User:Kbtkxh/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Urania Propitia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Having the work of female scientists be more readily available is incredibly important to me. As the stem fields are still heavily dominated by men, making women’s voices heard without the influence of men is important. This article feels very male dominated, despite Urania Propitia being written by a woman.

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.)

This article needs to be less biased. The lead section implies that very few women were active in science without a source. The introduction section has a focus on Kepler, using descriptions of the tasks needed to complete the tables instead of sticking to the facts. This section also is lacking in citations. Without a new heading, the article moves onto the content of Urania Propitia, with the very little information about the three sections also lacking citations. The article frequently references the tables, but has no image of them, which could be beneficial.

The article discusses Urania Propitia without citing it. The one citation of Urania Propitia is to show that online copies exist.

The cosmology section feels like it’s lacking in material. There is also a term in quotations (aphelions) with no definition or context as it ends the section, despite the rest of the section explaining the cosmology model in simpler terms.

The historical significance section is the best cited section of the article, featuring all but one of the total citations. Much of this section could be moved to a background section to provide the context as to why it was written, as it covers the naming of Urania Propitia instead of the historical significance the section suggests it would cover. The remainder of this section covers the locations of the physical copies, which can be useful but provides no historical significance.

The talk page is nonexistent in content