User:Ktf5vd/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: Uraniborg
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because I have always enjoyed studying and researching old buildings and structures.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead's intro sentence tells us what Uraniborg is and some important dates and people associated with it.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it gives a brief overview of its history, which is the only section of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? All information in the in the lead is discussed in the article, except for the restoration of Uraniborg itself, which isn't explicitly discussed.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is pretty concise and seems to fit the article proportionally in length and content.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the lead is decent for what it is. It accurately corresponds with the information in the article and with the article's organization.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? For the most part, the information is relevant. There are some pieces of information that seem random, such as the sentence about the budget of the project.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, the content has been edited and built upon recently.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no content about what caused the destruction of Uraniborg. There is also no information on what scientific work/observation took place there.

Content evaluation
The content that is there is good, but there should be more info added, such as that about the budget of the project and the destruction of the observatory.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? For the most part it is, but I would like to find more information on the cost figures of the construction.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, but upon reading the talk page and edit history, it was interesting to see the comparison of Apollo to Uraniborg and bringing up the fact that if the US would've lost the Space Race, it would've been a major test to the validity of democracy during that time.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
From what it was before the edit to take the Apollo part out, the article has been pretty well neutralized except for the lack of information to show that it was a majorly expensive state project at the time.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? most of the sources are pretty reliable, such as the ones from the University of California and from Encyclopedia Britannica. There was a 403 forbidden error that occurred when I tried opening source 6.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources have more information that could be potentially used to improve the article and boost its rating.
 * Are the sources current? Most of the sources are somewhat recent, but a few are from online archives.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links I chose work, except for citation 6, which brings up an error.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources used are pretty decent, and they could provide more information for the article.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is clear for the most part, but there are some fragments of information that could be reworked to better suit the flow of the article. It would also be beneficial to outline the article so that it shows information on things such as the geography of the area and what work was carried out in the observatory and attached labs.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? The grammar and spelling in the article appears to be correct.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No, the article only has one main section, which is the history section.

Organization evaluation
Overall, the article could use restructuring. It needs to be broken into sections that go into more depth on various topics, such as more descriptions of the building itself and the instruments used.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the images coincide with the information in the article.
 * Are images well-captioned? The captions of the first two images just state where they are from, and the caption of the last image goes into a bit more detail.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, the three images are old book illustrations, which are in the public domain.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, they weren't intrusive and complemented the article.

Images and media evaluation
The images provided are good, but it would be nice to include some that provide any detail about the location itself, such as a picture of the site today and of any artifacts discovered upon exploration.

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 were several, including a proposal to reorganize the structure of the article and a discussion about the comparison of Uraniborg to the Apollo program.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It's a start class article of the Astronomy and Denmark WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We didn't talk about this article in class, but we didn't really emphasize article categories such as images or the lead too much.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page provides a good foundation as to what needs to be done to improve the article. Editors on the talk page provided some detailed guidance as to how the article should be reorganized, as well as raising questions as to what needs to be added to the article to increase its fullness.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article is definitely a project and needs more information and better organization.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article provides a good foundation of information and has informative sources referenced.
 * How can the article be improved? The article definitely needs more information, and needs to be restructured, possibly based on the layout one editor proposed on the talk page.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think the article is underdeveloped. It is a good starting point where it is, but with reorganization and additional information, it could be improved.

Overall evaluation
The article definitely caught my interest, and has potential to be a valuable tool in the history of astronomy and of Denmark.

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: