User:Lartola/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: Logical positivism
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * Philosophy has always interested me, and the function of language in regards to philosophy fits into this assignment perfectly.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Not necessarily. The knowledge in the Lead isn't accessible to a person who is not well-read on the subject already. It does provide some historical background and placement.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There is a table of contents, but they are not given a brief overview in the Lead
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Not as far as I can tell
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It's not entirely concise per se, but the flow of the Lead reads like an esoteric philosophy text. Ideally, as an encyclopedia, this text should be easily read by someone outside of the field.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * There are a couple anecdotes, but it mostly includes broad background information related to the topic
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The foundations of this topic goes back considerably far, and it doesn't seem that new development have been made in a contemporary perspective, so I'm not sure how relevant the currency of the information is
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I'll have to do some deeper research on the topic before I can claim that there are pieces missing or that certain things are irrelevant.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article in neutral in the sense of not biased, but it's not neutral in the sense of being able to be read easily.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position
 * The content is mostly a detailed account of the journey the movement took.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Negative, the information is seemingly neutral.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Nope, there are not any qualitative statements in regards to positions for or against

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Not all statements have references to support them
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * From the available references, they seem to be accurately represented
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most sources are mid-late century, though a couple sources are post-2000.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The saving grace of this article is that all links are alive.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Absolutely not. It's written in a way that the meaning is only accessible to philosophers.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not from what I noticed. Some of the syntax makes the phrases ambiguous or the meaning too abstract.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * For the most part, yes.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, this article has no pictures.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The first comment is how the tone is cultish. Other comments lament the organization, and still others are gradually attempting to work through things bit by bit
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It's rated as a C-Class article and is part of the Philosophy, Linguistics, and Religion WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There are Wikipedians having conversations about content, wording, organization, and just about every aspect of this article. In class, it seemed as though content would be the main concern.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It needs serious revising.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * There is a lot of detailed information about all the characters that played a role in the movement of Logical Positivism.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Organizationally and grammatically.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Definitely underdeveloped.

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:
 * Talk:Logical positivism