User:Sun Snow Bear/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Apocalypticism

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article semi randomly from the category lists since it seemed like it might be interesting. The contradiction between living an active life in a modern society and the belief that it is all going to end seems interesting.

There is a significant portion of the population which follows beliefs along these lines, the colloquial "prepper", so having some understanding of their thought process and how they influence the world around them would be valuable.

My initial impression of the article was minor surprise on how tightly the subject was linked to religion, both in the subject matter and the categorization in Wikipedia. On reflection, this is not surprising, but does reflect the biases of my personal beliefs which do not coincide with the major religions that believe in a "judgement day" or some parallel.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead section does a good job at defining the term and its context; however it does not clearly separate the issue from the more secular doomsday beliefs. The title of the section overlaps heavily in the popular perception between the two subjects. That it is being used specifically here is not a problem, but that needs to be clearly defined and delineated.

The content of the article seems to be thorough, touching on a wide an array of different beliefs around different historical and geographic regions. Given the nature of historical documents I don't believe there are any significant biasses beyond the inevitable one that those areas most talked about are those that have the most surviving historical records.

The article was written in a factual tone, without any analysis. All of the many different topics were treated the same. Since the subject of the article is largely historical fact without much disagreement about what events occurred there isn't much accounting for multiple perspectives of a single issue. The authors seem to have done a good job of pointing out were information is lacking and not attempting to fill in these gas themselves.

Each subjection is backed up by at least one secondary reference. There has been a thorough job to imbed links to other relevant Wikipedia pages throughout the writing.

Organization and writing quality are all good, I see no major issues.

Talk page has a long history and the general tone seems to be a good discussion of how to unbiasedly portray the religious historical accounts. How to portray the Christian beliefs in particular seemed to be a point of contention.