User:KimChilly/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.


 * History of Science: (History of science)
 * This article relates to the course as it should give an overview of some of the major topics we have talked about (and will be talking about) in class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the article has an introductory sentence at the beginning that summarizes what the article is all about and briefly defines the broader topic discussed.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the article goes over the main topics it is about and there is a key that lets readers select exactly what part of the article they want to read about.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the article very well structured so everything talked about in the lead is also mentioned and described further in the main body of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is brief and clear. It gives the right amount of information for the reader to get a quick overview of what's going on.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The article talks about many different topics and many different points in time. All those different sections are relevant to the article and help deepen and further explain the topic at hand.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The article is about the History of Science so the problem of new inventions and progress making old information irrelevant isn't as big a concern for this specific topic as it would be for something more science, medicine, or technology related. However, the information is still up-to-date in terms of its' contents. There are some calls for "clarification needed", however, so there is still work to be done in bringing the whole article to one common standard of being completely up-to-date on everything it describes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The topic of History of Science is a very broad topic and many things could be considered to be part of this development over time that brought us to where we are today. There could be an argument made that the history of science should include more detailed information of where it lead to, therefore making it necessary to include more detail about modern scientific disciplines. However, the article does a very good job of mentioning the disciplines it gave rise to and even explaining History of Science as a subject to be studied in school, therefore the article does a good job of finding a "happy in-between".

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is written in a professional and neutral tone of voice and does not convey any bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article does contain certain sections that seem to convey an "old-school" tone in such that it talks mainly about white, European men who were credited with starting and furthering the scientific revolution and, however there is a section dedicated to this very phenomenon and it does explain an alternate point of view that credits asian sources for many of the developments and inventions.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Eurocentric views are definitely overrepresented in this article and even though there is a section explaining this phenomenon, the main article is still full of these kinds of biased view points and perspectives.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * It could be seen that way due to the afore mentioned focus on Eurocentrism in historical scientific developments. This perspective that white, European men are responsible for most of the developments in science is over-represented in the article.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, in fact there are quite a few sections where the citation is missing completely, so there definitely needs to be some improvements in that area.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources that are present seem to represent the available literature accurately.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The are a number of sources which are mostly based on older work, which is likely due to the nature of the article (it being an article about History...). Other sources, however, are just websites and online articles which do not seem like very credible sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links that were checked during this exercise did work, which is not to say that all links necessarily work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is easy enough, considering the content material, however here and there it would be wise to revise some paragraphs and make them more easily understandable.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The gramma and spelling looks good, nothing specific is standing out in that regard.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the organization of the article is excellent. The overview makes it easy to find specific sections of the topic and the organization of those sections into paragraphs is done well.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article has good pictures that undermine the subject of the paragraph that the picture is part of, however, in later sections Eurocentrism can be seen again, as most of the pictures of people are white, European men, over-emphasizing their contribution to the subject matter yet again.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The caption of the images are relevant and sufficient.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, the pictures adhere to the copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No, many of the images are clustered in a relatively small space while there are other sections without pictures all together. The layout could use some improvements in that regard.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is a big discussion about people disagreeing whether or not the article has an "ani-European" point of view. There is also a discussion about the difference between what constitutes science and what constitutes technology.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article was the collaboration of the week in February of 2005 and it is part of more than one WikiProject.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia focuses much more on a Eurocentric point of view, whereas we have considered the contributions of other cultures in class and given these contributions more attention and weight than on wikipedia.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is detailed and well-structured, however it still needs some improvements with it's citations and some of the view points and biases.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article shines in a great number of different topics covered in great detail.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It can be improved by describing some of the events in a different point of view than Eurocentrism. Furthermore, the article needs some improvements with its' citations.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Other than the already discussed issues of viewpoints and some citation issues, the overall quality of the article is high and it does a good job of providing a lot of information and detail about various different sections within the broader topic.

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: