User:Mosorio19/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: (link) Aristotle
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Philosophy is my major and I decided to go back to the roots of philosophy, Aristotle being the foundation of philosophy today.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The first sentence is clear and concise and generalizes what the article will be about by introducing Aristotle as a philosopher. The article lays out some of the topics that will be discussed in the rest of the article and provided brief descriptions of the topics and its relevance to the main topic of the article. However, not all topics of the article were introduced; only the overarching ones. There is some information about the influence on religions and communities Aristotle had but isn't really elaborated in the rest of the article. The lead included a good amount of information that both encompasses the important topics of the article with providing enough information without dragging it on for paragraphs.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
All of the article's topics include Aristotle in some form or another, making all the content relevant. The content seems up to date as it is still being edited today. The last time it was edited was on the 26th of this month. The article really covered all topics I could think of being related to Aristotle and then some. There doesn't seem to be any information missing or anything unrelated to the topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article seems neutral for the most part, with some exceptions. I noticed some of the wording seemed to be a little biased towards one viewpoint such as this phrase: "it was above all from his teachings that the West inherited its intellectual lexicon" or "his philosophy has exerted a unique influence on almost every form of knowledge". It seems biased towards the positive influence of Aristotle's work instead of the general influence. There is definitely a bigger focus on the breakthroughs that Aristotle made, leaving out his failures, which I assume he had many of since he's human just like the rest of us. I can't say that there was direct persuasion, but everything, for the most part, is phrased in a very positive light, almost as if putting him on a pedestal.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
I see a lot of citations and references to sources when making most claims. However, there are a few phrases, like the ones I previously quoted" that do not have any citation and makes me a little hesitant to believe those phrases because of it. The sources that are cited, however, do work, or at least the ones I checked, and seem like thorough and reliable sources. A lot of them are long written works either from the 20th or 19th century, but there are also a good amount of sources that are from the current century. Overall, there is a giant list of sources and citations that makes me feel like this information was reviewed to make sure it is as accurate as it can be.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The beginning of the article is easy to read for someone who doesn't have much of a background in philosophy. When it starts getting into the specifics of Aristotle's philosophies, however, it begins to get more complicated and might require some previous knowledge to fully grasp the material, but was still clear and easy to understand. I spotted about one or two spelling errors but nothing too noticeable. I like the way the article is organized and goes into more depth with each new topic introduced.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
The article provided lots of images that I believe were very helpful in emphasizing the written content. Philosophy especially is difficult to understand and visualize so I think the images could really aid in the understanding of such dense material for people who know nothing about philosophy but even for those who know a good amount. Their captions provided a clear and concise description and were laid out in a logical way that made it easy to understand which passage the image was referring to.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The article is rated as "good article criteria" which sounds accurate to me. Conversation in the talk page mostly consist of proposals to edit, add, or remove with people responding to questions and concerns. There seems to be good communication between all users.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
Overall I think the article is sufficient in providing information about Aristotle. It goes into depth about all his philosophies and his influence on other subjects such as astronomy, psychology, biology, and more. The images provide an additional visual explanation to aid with the written information. There could be more written about Aristotle's failures and the arguments made against him so the reader can create a more broad range of neutral information. The depth that the article goes into and the material it covers shows evidence of development and thorough revision.

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:Aristotle