User:M.andreasen1998/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: (Praxeology l)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This article discusses a topic that is similar to what psychologists try to study which is human action that is intentional and with a purpose. Studies from the era of behaviorism often focused on behavior and the similarity is striking.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise, simple, and to the point
 * Concise, simple, and to the point

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Content missing is in regard to the Polish and Austrian schools of thought on Praxeology. The article only provides additional reading after the references section. There needs to be coverage in the article to describe the differences between the two schools concerning this philosophical phenomenon
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article covers a historically underrepresented topic. I have never heard of the concept of Praxeology until today

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The history of Praxeology in the Polish school is overall missing. Austrian economics is the primary section of the extrapolation of the theory in it's use and seems to be overrepresented because it and the etymology of the term are the only fully fleshed out sections of this article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Since the particular topic is historical in nature, most of the sources were written before the 2000's; the older sources are reasonable as they are from the original proponents of the topic itself.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, there are some female authors referenced on the topic
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, but some sections are missing and need to be included

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, but it seems that images are not necessary for this topic
 * 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 main topic of discussion is whether Praxeology itself is considered a science. There have also been discussion as to whether this article is biased towards a pro-Austrian view
 * 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?
 * It is more objective and there is a pressing need to make sure that the article is clear, concise and well-rounded to include all information. Talk in class seems to make learning and understanding the topics regardless of biased thinking

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It is fairly good, but there are some serious concerns with the lack of specific sub-sections
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The sections regarding the etymology/origins of the term and how the term is used in Austrian economics is well rounded, concise, and unbiased. The article is overall objective and lacks any sort of bias.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Criticisms of Praxeology should be expanded upon and there needs to be a section concerning the polish perspective of Praxeology
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is underdeveloped and still needs plenty more work

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: