User:Mikrovolnofka/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.

I chose this article because I am interested in solar eclipses and I wrote my first paper for this class on solar eclipses, so I feel like I have enough information to understand the article.
 * Name of article: Solar eclipse
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The first sentence defines what I solar eclipse is, which I think is a good opening for an encyclopedia article. No, it starts talking about total eclipses, mythology, and damage of solar eclipses. Yes, everything talked about in the lead is found later in the text. I think that it is a little bit on the overly detailed side, especially since everything said is talked about later on. This is mainly applicable to the talk about the total eclipse.
 * 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

Yes, it it talks about various topics closely related to eclipses. Yes, there is updated information about eclipses from this year. I think all of the content is pretty relevant. If anything I would like more information about the relation to mythology, but that could potentially be it's own article. I also think
 * 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?

talking about the science of the solar eclipse in differentr societies could be useful. No, it doesn't
 * 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

Yes, the article is very neutral. No, the section I think has the most potential for bias is talking about damage of looking at the eclipse, but that section seemed very informative. It seems like there were just enough viewpoints in the article. I think there is an underrepresentation of an understanding from outside of the west historically. No, I don't think so.
 * 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

yes, the article has a good amount of citations from reliable sources like NASA. Yes Yes No Yes
 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * 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

Yes, there is a lot of jargon, but I think the article does a good job of explaining the terms. No Yes
 * 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

Yes, images are a very important part of the article. yes Yes, many of the images are marked as originals. Yes
 * 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

Small corrections and updating information. It is a feature article and level 4 vital article. It is a part of 6 wikiprojects It focuses a lot more on a more modern understanding of eclipses then a historical perspective.
 * 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

featured article The article has a lot of scientific information backed up good sources It could use more diversification of perspectives. I would say the article is well 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?

Overall evaluation

 * This is a very useful and good article.