User:Rivico/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Robert Grosseteste - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because Robert Grosseteste is considered among the first progenitors of modern scientific thought and there is little known about his beginnings or early education.

Evaluate the article
The lead of the article provides a quick, clear, and concise overall background describing who Robert Grosseteste was and a small amount of content over what he was known for. However, the lead hardly describes any other sections of the article and instead leaves that to the contents table located right under it. The content of this article is relevant to the topic as it is all based off of Robert's history and his impact in history. There are missing pieces of information that involve his scholarly career and a full two decades aren't known about his life spanning from around 1200 to 1220 CE according to the article. There are many different sources from multiple different authors in which this article derived from with many if not all of them being credible and having a background relevant to the article. The article is relatively unbiased with the only notable bias being that he was stated to be "the first" in many different topics without direct proof or citation to back up those statements. The article describes the views and thoughts of other people of Robert's time in an unbiased, factual manner. Despite that shortcoming, the article is well written and easy to digest thanks in part to it being spilt into different sections. All images included had a caption that gave a brief insight to them, were on the right side of the page in a typical wiki format, relevant to the topic, and in the public domain. The talk page lists the article as C-class, mid importance. It has a very intriguing comment saying that there is a theory that Robert had invented an early form of the telescope and that it should be included in the article. Another comment says that his biography should come before his works and importance according to wiki guidelines for biographies and listed a like to Shakespear's wiki page as a reference. I believe that this article needs improvement as it is missing a big gap in information spanning nearly two decades as well as his biography is in need of expansion as the article mainly involves his feats and legacy. The article is still a decent work despite its flaws and overall had more positives than negatives.