User:Mfs2162/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.


 * Bible Dictionary (LDS Church)
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because I don't know much about the Church of Later Day Saints (LDS) other than they are Mormon so I have very limited knowledge going in and can evaluate to see if there is content that I don't know about that is missing. Similarly, I grew up in the Catholic church so I have a good idea of what kind of information should be included so I have a framework to know what might be missing.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. I actually learned that LDS published a dictionary to accompany their bible.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There are no other major sections in this article but there is mention of information that could become major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, but this is likely because there are no other major sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead falls somewhere between concise and overly detailed. I think it would be concise if some of the topics mentioned were expanded upon later in the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the article's content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The last thing referenced was in 1997 and I do think there has likely been some sort of changes to the Bible Dictionary since then so it is likely that the information isn't entirely up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think there is some content that does not belong in the lead such as information about the group that developed the Bible Dictionary. This could be put in another section (but there aren't any other sections).
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, the article doesn't deal with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps. That said, I am not sure how this particular article could address that other than acknowledging there has been a lack of diversity in LDS.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article appears to be neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The language appears to be neutral and not skewed towards any particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Modern technological developments are very underrepresented within this article. There was a lot of focus on the History of Technology, which makes sense, however, there may have been too much emphasis on the history.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, there does not appear to be any attempts at persuading the reader toward any particular position.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, everything is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information (even if a bit outdated).
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I don't think that the sources provided reflect all the available literature on the topic. People seem to have a lot to say about LDS so I cannot image that this is the limit of what is available. Further, the information is only from two different sources - I do think that leaves a bit to be desired.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No, the most current source is from 1997.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * There is not a diverse spectrum of authors, that said, this is an ongoing problem within LDS in general.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links do work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is well-written and is easy to understand.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * As far as I can tell, no there were not.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No, this article only had a lead. It touched on things like history and development of the Bible Dictionary but didn't expand. I think inclusion of controversy would be an important section to include as well.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, there were no images.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Not applicable as there were no images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Not applicable as there were no images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Not applicable as there were no images.

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 is a conversation about the Mormon Doctrine being a source for the Bible Dictionary. What is interesting is the acknowledgement that people who have had interest in editing this page have not actually bothered to verify some of the sources of infomation.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated as start-class, mid-importance. It is involved in WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, WikiProject Christianity / Bible, and WikiProject Reference works
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * My impression is that it doesn't differ much in how we have talked about the approach for writing/editing. The content is clearly unrelated to class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * This article appears to be a good start but has a lot to be expanded upon.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The breadth of information that is included and providing a starting point for further exploration.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Expansion upon topics like history that were only briefly touched upon.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I don't think this is a well developed article and it could stand to have more information included as well as more sources.

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: