User:Limúnar22/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article - Logic
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Logic
 * There is plenty to discuss and analyze in an article about Logic. If it is written well, it should be logical. If not, I have discovered a paradox.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead does have a clear definition of logic, which is done very well considering how colloquial the term 'logic' is. It would be hard to define logic without using the term logic or logical. The sentence is very brief and does not get into anything too specific.

The article briefly describes each of the major topics in their own small paragraph, followed by a table of contents.

There are sections of the Lead that do not connect to the rest of the article. For example, the term "circular dependencies" is mentioned in the introduction, but there is no other reference of circular logic or dependencies in the entire article. This is an issue/

The lead may be a bit to detailed, but it is difficult to strike a balance between touching upon everything else in the article and brevity. I think that it is just detailed enough.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

All of the information in the article is relevant to the topic of logic and deviations from said logic.

The article was edited less than a week ago, so it seems that the information is up to date.

I see no content that appears to be missing and everything that is there belongs.

I don't see any equity gaps, but the article does exclude some populations such as Muslim philosophers. This was fixed in an edit, but it was a problem until very recently.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article handles its neutrality very well, as it deals with some subjects that could very easily be misrepresented, such as the work of Muslim and Persian philosophers.

There are no such claims that appear to be heavily biased.

The views of the Greeks, Indians and Westerners are represented more than others, such as the Chinese.

No, the article does not seem to persuade the reader in any particular direction.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Most of the facts are backed up with reliable sources, but there is a large section in "Computational Logic" that does not seem to have any citations whatsoever.

All of the sources are reliable sources, as books from professional historians and or first hand sources from the logicians themselves.

Very few of the sources are current, as most of them were written in the early to mid twentieth century. Some sources are as early as the 1600's and some are as recent as 2014.

The sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors. A vast majority of the authors are white males, including the philosophers themselves. I cannot see any marginalized individuals in the mix, but there are some female authors.

Many of the links work, but some of the books with listed ISBN numbers cannot be found on Google.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

It's an article about logic, of course it's hard to understand. One must read the text as least 4 times to glean all the necessary information from the text. It is concise, but it is not extremely clear.

There are no grammatical or spelling errors.

The article does have sound logical (pun intended) organization, broken up by the different fields of logic and history.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There are only five pictures in the entire article. While they relate to the topic, they do not entirely help the reader understand the associated text.

The images have accurate captions, but they do not assist the reader in understanding the images without first reading the article.

All the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

The images are sparse, but they are laid out in a visually pleasing way.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

Not a lot of conversations have been going on. There is a continuing thread about errors in external links, but otherwise the Talk page is populated with edits that no one has followed up on.

The article is listed as a level 2 article in philosophy, as B-class. It is part of the philosophy and mathematics WikiProject

It's different because no has discussed the topic. All comments have been left unsigned except for the InternetArchiveBot.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

I thought that the article was a tad bit confusing, but thorough, but after completing this evaluation, the article seems to be in disrepair. It is considered a vital article in Philosophy, It did not meet many of the requirements of a solid Wiki article.

The article discusses the main ideas well, and it uses mostly good sources that are all verifiable. It does not persuade, but merely inform.

The article seems to underrepresent as well as ignore some groups of people. It doesn't use images well and no one seems to be helping each other out. Maybe there is no need to learn about logic in these trying times.

The article is merely underdeveloped, not poorly developed.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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: