User:Nii Engmann/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)The God Delusion
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I thought I might find it interesting to examine a religious commentary that is not in favor of a modern religion.

Lead
The lead included an intro sentence that gives the reader a clear view of the book that is about to be discussed. It gives a comprehensive but concise breakdown of the backgrounders of this book and the information surrounding it.

Content

 * The content is both relevant and has been updated and edited as recently as this year within the last few months. The content is based specifically around the topic. and stays on topic throughout the writing. Almost of the content seems to be up to date and whilst there are a few areas that I think are slightly extraneous overall it is well focused. This article doesn't speak directly to any groups or topics that are underrepresented or or historically less documented.
 * The content is both relevant and has been updated and edited as recently as this year within the last few months. The content is based specifically around the topic. and stays on topic throughout the writing. Almost of the content seems to be up to date and whilst there are a few areas that I think are slightly extraneous overall it is well focused. This article doesn't speak directly to any groups or topics that are underrepresented or or historically less documented.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * I would say on the while the article is neutral although this specific topic is one that is riding a heavy bias, mainly that religion is a delusion meaning that even the relating of facts from this book or writing around it will present in a way that appears biased. It is not. persuasive article by any means, and the way in which it is written is probably the least biased way it could be.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * This article is very thoroughly sourced and has a lot of sources surrounding it and contributing to it. They include a wide variety of authors from different backgrounds and have both older and current sources. All links appear to be working.

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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * The article only includes one picture which is the original book cover published in the Uk. The image is simple but well captioned and appears to fall under Wikipedia's copyright regulations. I would too say the image is incredibly appealing so much as it is, informative.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * This page is not extensive but it does offer some harsh criticisms of the work at hand including a lack of detail in the opening and some bias presented in the writing which I actually dont agree with. Think that the bias is only presented because of the nature of the book itself. It appears to be rated as a medium quality article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * Overall this article is very informative and I thin that given the bias of the content of the book the writers and editors have done a respectable job presenting the the subject matter in a informative way. It is strong in its accurate depiction of the facts and the details from the book its weakness is the way I which it sometimes presents as biased and that it is not as extensive as it maybe could be. That being said it is still well and fully developed but I believe more information could be added although that might also add to the unavoidable biases.