User:Krtsstko2/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Urania Propitia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this because of Maria Cunitz's obscurity despite her importance in making astronomical information more available to the public. Given the gravity and complexity of this specific work, more content and citations are needed, and the page itself is very much in its infancy.

Evaluate the article
The article has a decent start of a leading section, but more citations and more of a focus on the book's content itself is needed. The introduction, while also a good start, lacks content, citations, and is too conversational in tone, especially in regard to Kepler's original work. Parts 1-3 subheadings are severely lacking in content and citations, with several direct quotes going un-cited. Once the introduction has been expanded, the "parts" should be split off into their own heading; otherwise, the organization of the article is sufficient for its current state. The cosmology section is very brief, and requires expansion to warrant its own heading. The history section has a decent number of citations, in contrast to the rest of the article, but focuses more on Cunitz's contribution is women's advancement over the impact the work itself had on the field of astronomy, and seems to lean on speculation as to the importance of Cunitz to women's scientific advancement. Much of this should be covered by Cunitz's own page. Additional images of the work within the book would compliment the text, especially if there are diagrams available. The few existing citations seem to be of scholarly quality.

Overall, the current state of the article is a decent starting point. The page requires a substantial amount of additional content and citations, professionalization of the tone, and more of an emphasis on the impacts and importance of the work itself over the author, remarkable as she may be.