User:Oludara Orederu/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) Talk:Eisegesis
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen to evaluate this article because I am interested in Biblical studies and studying Christianity. I have often seen the word eisegesis come up in regards to studying and interpreting scripture so I decided to evaluate this article so that I have a better understanding of what eisegesis means.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the article begins by defining what the word eisegesis means in one clear and concise opening statement.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very concise.

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? There does not seem to be content that does not belong, however I do believe that there is content missing as this article is very short and does not go into depth about the topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? The article seems to be slightly biased.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position however the article does insinuate that practicing eisegesis is bad so it seems to be slightly biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Viewpoints that are in support of eisegesis are underrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article seems to insinuate the reader goes in a particular position however it does not seem like the nature of this article is to be persuasive. No persuasive arguments were stated in the article, however the article does suggest that the reader think eisegesis is bad.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? It seems as though not all the facts throughout the article are backed up by sources. There are statements that are made throughout the article that seemingly do not have sources to back them up.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources that are present do reflect the literature on the topic however more sources should be included in the article.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links worked.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is very easy to read, and is quite clear and concise.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, the article does not have any grammatical or spelling errors that I can see.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, the article does not have any images.
 * Are images well-captioned? The article does not have any images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NA

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Some of the conversation on the talk page is about the article utilizing judgemental words. The author responded to the individual and actually said that he removed the terminology that would come off as such and asked for people to provide him with their opinions on why eisegesis can be good. From that, we can know that the author does not think that eisegesis is good and that he is writing from that standpoint.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? I do not see a rating on the talk page of this article.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The overall status of this article is that the article is not quite neutral. This article however is very clear and concise but this may be due to a lack of including needed information that would give a well rounded view of this topic. The current view that this article presents is slightly skewed towards being biased.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article's overall strengths are that it describes the topic and in a clear and concise manner.
 * How can the article be improved? The article can be improved by going into further depth in the topic. The article would benefit by including more information as to why eisegesis is beneficial or non-beneficial. The article states what eisegesis is however it does not tell the reader about any importance, or lack there of, that it has.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think the article does lack completeness. The article can go in to further depth in the topic. Reading this article I do feel like I understand the basics of what eisegesis is but I do not know when/if it is beneficial to do it or how to properly go about doing so.

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: