User:Sofiajulbe/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: (link) Philosophy of mind
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have never taken a philosophy class but have always been interested in the subject. This article immediately looked like it would provide valid information.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, right in the first sentence it defines philosophy of mind.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Overly detailed

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes. Many of the edits are from this year; the most recent ones are from September, 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Despite how interesting this article is, it is overly detailed; for instance, the author wrote a paragraph about the arguments for Dualism.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No and yes.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? No
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Surprisingly I did not find any claims that appeared biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I explained earlier that I found the Arguments of Dualism paragraph to be unnecessarily overly detailed so I do find that paragraph to be overrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? In a way, yet, the article targets many points but it all relates to one perspective which is philosophy.

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
 * Are the sources current? Most of them.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the sources that were provided were valid. There was more than one source in each paragraph.
 * 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? It is concise.
 * 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? This article is broken down into sections which is very beneficial for the reader, myself included.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * 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? This article undergoing a featured article review
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is known for exemplifying wikipedias very best work
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We have not talked about philosophy in this course

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? I liked the article but I know there are more developed ones
 * What are the article's strengths? How organized it is
 * How can the article be improved? Not be so detailed
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? 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: