User:Reillycorsaut/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Talk:Zodiac

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I found it on one of the links provided to choose from. Personally, I find astrology and the zodiacs very interesting and it is already a topic that I am somewhat familiar with and can understand some of it. This article matters because it is a topic many believe in and is tied into the history all over the world spanning from Greek Mythology to European With craft. From a preliminary impression, I thought that this wikipedia article was valid due to the formatting of the page and the citations that were stated. Looking into the Talk section of the Wikipedia article, it is interesting to see the different opinions that people may have on how to accurately discuss the information.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section


 * The first sentence accurately tells what the article will be about. Due to their being different versions of the zodiac depending on where you are in the world, the scientific meaning that is accepted across most of where you are in the world is represented.
 * The article does include a brief section about what will be included in the article.
 * No, it does not include information that is not in the article.
 * The lead is very concise and is only four sentences long

Contents


 * Yes, the contents is all related to the article.
 * Yes, for the most part, the content is up-to-date. A few years ago, NASA released information about how there is a 13th zodiac. The article has only updated half of it to fit this new reflection. Towards the end, it is updated but in the beginning, it is not.
 * Yes, there is content that is missing. In the beginning, there is missing information about the zodiac sign Ophiuchus and is not properly reflected in this article.
 * Yes, the article discusses Wikipedia's equity gaps. Specifically, when it is talking about the history of how the belief of the zodiac's came to be, they discuss different backgrounds, such as Hebrew, Islamic, and Hindu beliefs. This is important to note because this history is significant to the creation of what is the modern day zodiac.

Tone and Balance


 * Yes, the article is from a neutral point of view. In the Talk page, you can see how people have tried to add biased information, but other users have made corrections in the past to make sure that there was no published biased information spread.
 * No, there is nothing over-biased in this article. As seen in the Talk page and revision history, there were attempts for there to be biased information before but there had been revisions to prevent this from happening.
 * No, there are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Yes, the minority viewpoints are accurate. When looking through Talk page, there is a lot of conversation coming from minority viewpoints discussing what the past form of action there is to make sure that their viewpoint is accurate.
 * No, the article does not sway anyone towards any position. This article is very non-biased, especially after careful review by others.

Sources and References


 * Yes, all of the facts in the article are backed up by reliable sources. Some of these sources could be more up-to-date though, as some date back to the 1700's. This could help add more credibility to the article. After researching several of the articles through lateral reading, I can agree that these sources are reliable.
 * This article is a very brief overview of the Zodiacs, but it does link the other articles that are available and provide a much more thorough response. In the future, this article could expand upon including the other zodiac signs and diving more into the Western perspective instead of the scientific. The "In Modern Astrology" section does not provide much detail about modern astrology. In the beginning, a few links are offered to be able to dive deeper into the individual zodiacs, but this is not offered nor discussed in this section. Potentially expanding this section would allow for a greater understanding of modern astrology and Western astrology.
 * Some of the sources are current. Some are from all the way back in the 1700's though, which may not be as reliable now. It may be a wise decision to update some of the sources that are referenced, unless a specific document from back then needs to be cited.
 * Yes, this article is written by a diverse spectrum of authors. People from several different backgrounds engaged with creating this article which has allowed for a variety of information that is necessary to discuss this article to be involved.
 * All of the sources come from a reliable source, but I am concerned about the amount of times certain journals are being referenced.
 * Several of the links that I checked are working properly.

Organization and Writing Quality


 * Yes, the article is somewhat well written. There are some places where there is not enough information is provided for readers to be able to understand the information, such as in the "In Modern Astrology" section. Additionally, there are some issues with the organization that I noticed that were also mentioned in the Talk section.
 * No, there are no grammatical errors.
 * Yes, the article is well-organized. The only issue I have is that astronomy and astrology really need to be distinguished as two separate entities. As someone mentioned in the Talk section, it would be misleading to readers if it was believed that the two are both scientifically equal and valid. Astronomy is a perfectly valid form of scientific research while astrology on the other hand, is not.

Images and Media


 * Yes, there are a significant amount of pictures in the article that help the understanding of the topic. I think it is important how they showed the different constellations and how in history these drawings were depicted in early civilization. This further solidifies the ideas that may have only been depicted in writings.
 * Yes, the images are well captioned. They also provide sources that link to other Wikipedia articles that can discuss them in more depth. I like how this gives the readers more options to learn more if they so desire to.
 * Yes, all of the images are in line with Wikipedia's copyright policy. In fact, the editors utilized the Wiki image search that Wikipedia provides so that citing the images is significantly easier because they are already approved for Wikipedia to use instead of having to ask for copyright rights from the original user.
 * Yes, all of the images are laid out in a visually appealing way. The images are placed to the sides, next to the paragraphs, so that it is not very distracting to the reading. Additionally, they are not placed in inappropriate sections such as in the middle of sentences.

Talk Page Discussion


 * There is a lot of discussion about the formatting of the page and how it should be laid out. Additionally, someone who has knowledge about the Wikipedia's equity gap had made suggestions in order for the article to be more accurate of minority viewpoints.
 * This article is rated as a level-4 vital article and is a part of 2 Wikiprojects.
 * The Talk section does mention how some of the information some people wanted to put in may be biased, false, or plagiarism. Someone wanted to make an edit about how people do not need to know anything about their zodiacs, but another editor responded how that is a biased statement, thus not belonging in the article. Additionally, as I mentioned before there had been discussion about how one of the journals that is cited for this article is mentioned a significant amount of time. This is to protect against plagiarism and to not be biased.

Overall Impressions


 * The overall status of this article is that it does provide a very basic understanding of the topic about zodiacs. A significant amount of information could be added and this article does need to be updated to fit today's standards.
 * The article's strengths are that it provides a good foundation for what the zodiacs are. It provides a good background about how the zodiacs were first discovered and how different cultures viewed the astronomy. The article is not too lengthy so it is easy for readers to quickly read the entire article in a few minutes. Additionally, there is a significant amount of links that the readers could press on should they want to learn more information. Lastly, the citations used are very reliable and help firmly support this article.
 * The article could have some improvements by further explaining some of the points instead of the general history. Additionally, most of the western culture about zodiacs is not covered. Possibly that could be added on to this article or there could be another Wikipedia page that specifically address it. I also believe that it is important that there should be a distinction between astronomy and astrology. This can cause a misunderstanding between these two terms because one is a scientific belief and the other is more folklore.
 * I believe that this article could be developed more. There is a good chunk of missing information that would be important when learning about this topic. It is a good start if you just want to learn about the basic foundation of what the zodiac is, but is not very helpful unless you would like to know the history of how the zodiac came to be.