User:Regulustar/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The article I am evaluating is the article on Ancient Greek astronomy.

Why have you chosen this article to evaluate?
I have an interest in Ancient Greece and in astronomy. In addition, this article is of interest to four WikiProjects: WikiProject History of Science, WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, and WikiProject Greece.

Lead Section

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, there appears to be an introductory sentence that describes the topic concisely and clearly.


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

There is a brief description, but it does not appear to include Eudoxan Astronomy, which is one of the major sections.


 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)

No, it does not appear that the lead contains information that is not present in the article.


 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

I think the lead is concise, but perhaps it could use a few more sentences of detail.

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes, the content appears to be relevant to the topic.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

Yes, the content appears up-to-date.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

There does not seem to be any content that does not belong, but the article could be supplemented by more information regarding the Antikythera Mechanism, which is an ancient astronomical device that is still being studied.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes, I think it does deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. The topic of Ancient Greek astronomy is not widely studied in comparison to other topics in the subject of Ancient Greece, and this article would address that issue.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the article neutral?

The article is not neutral throughout the text - there are some instances of writing from first person plural ("we"). In addition, some wording does not suggest neutrality.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Yes, there seem to be a few claims that are biased.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The section on Ptolemaic astronomy is heavily detailed in comparison to other sections.


 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

No, the article does not seem to discuss fringe viewpoints clearly.


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Yes, the article seems to be trying to persuade the reader of a certain position (for example, that Plato was not a creative mathematician).

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

No, many statements need citations.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

There are sources for each section, but they do not seem to reflect the available literature on the topic


 * Are the sources current?

No, not all of the sources are current. In addition, some do not have dates in the citations.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Yes, the authors are diverse - there is a Greek, French, and Indian source. However, this may not be enough for the breadth of the article.


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

Yes, there are surviving texts of ancient Greek astronomers. It is also possible to find references to astronomical studies in the texts of ancient historians. There are also ongoing studies of astronomical devices (such as the Antikythera Mechanism) that can contribute to this article.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

There are only a couple of links, but they do work.

Organization and Writing Quality

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

The article is easy to read, but not all of the article is concise.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Yes, there are some grammatical errors. There do not seem to be spelling errors.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, the article is well-organized.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes, the images enhance understanding of the topic, but it may help further understanding to include more images.


 * Are images well-captioned?

The images are captioned with descriptions of the subject.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Not all images have sources cited.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Yes, the images do not interfere with the text.

Talk Page Discussion

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

The discussions are about the Greek names of the planets, and fair use rationale for one of the images.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article is rated Mid-Importance for four WikiProjects - WikiProject History of Science, WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, and WikiProject Greece.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

The authors are respectful in the Talk Page, but there is not much discourse regarding the improvement of the article.

Overall Impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?

The article is overall a C-Class article.


 * What are the article's strengths?

The article's strengths are that there is some information regarding the astronomical theories of the period, as well as some historical context.


 * How can the article be improved?

The article needs to be checked for grammatical errors and written in a more unbiased manner. In addition, far more citations are needed to supplement the facts stated within the article.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

The article is rather underdeveloped and could use more editing before it can be a complete article.