User:ParkerHeustess/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: Anthropology of religion
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I selected this article because my undergraduate education was in Cultural Anthopology and my focus was on religion and folklore.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it covers the topic in a short easy to digest blurb.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes it does
 * 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 concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, it is
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes.  there are citations dated as recently as 2017, and the field does not move that quickly.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I see.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.  It provides a simple definition
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The article presents 2 definitions of religion, and the views of Anthony F. C. Wallace are given more page-space.  However Wallace is the newer scholar, and Clifford Geertz is an older one.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it is presented as fact.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, as recent as 2017
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they all worked

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it does

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? It does not. The single image is more generic
 * Are images well-captioned? No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The single image is part of the series marker

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 are some talk topics on the removal of anti-science PoVs in the topic and other commentary on new information and brief edits
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Start Class, High Importance, and it is part of Anthropology, Religion, and Theology
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It does not

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? IT is a complete article
 * What are the article's strengths? This article is concise and clear, providing definitions and a good rundown
 * How can the article be improved? I cannot think of anything
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say that it is well developed and thorough.

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: