User:Sffleck/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: Cosmos
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: This was an option available for the Wikipedia Project and I found this topic the most interesting because I am interested in the philosophical and religious aspects of cosmology.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it explains the meaning behind the word as well as the definition.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it mentions that the cosmos article covers scientific, religious, and philosophical views.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It mentions that cosmos are the opposite of "chaos" but do not touch on what exactly "chaos" means in relation to cosmos.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is quite concise and gives the right amount of information that is relative to the rest of the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, it mentions the etymology of the word cosmos, as well as the scientific, religious, and philosophical views, as well as different geographical views.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, the last edit was from only a week ago.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There seems to be enough content that the lead introduces.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, there is nothing that is biased and everything is an objective fact.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, everything has enough information.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, everything is an objective fact regarding the meaning behind cosmos.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, they cite many credible people such as biochemist and historian Joseph Needham.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they cite many credible sources such as The Encyclopedia of Cosmos and Astrology and Cosmology in Early China.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, they use sources from as recent as 2014.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

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 matches the lead quite well and is structured by specific definition and then geographical research, and a conclusion.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes the article provides images of various depictions of cosmos.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, the explain the image and are cited.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, there are links and citations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? It is related to topics of Cosmology, Religions, and Philosophy.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is not rated as a featured article but it is part of the Physics, Systems, and Philosophy WikiProjects.
 * 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? In progress.
 * What are the article's strengths? It touches on geographic views as well as philosophical views and religious views.
 * How can the article be improved? Elaborating on "chaos" as stated in the lead.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is well-developed.

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: