User:Tatazaifendou/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: Modernity
 * Modernity is what I'm interested in academically, and I believed it related to eugenics in certain senses.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The article has an introductory sentence at the very beginning, but it could be a little bit more concise if change the structure of the sentence. The article doesn't have many sections, only four sections: etymology, phases, definition, defined, with the third elaborated, with seven subsections. Most of the seven are mentioned in the Lead, so is the second section (phases). Meanwhile, the first and last sections are not mentioned, but they are not of great importance. Part of the definition cited from Foucault is not mentioned in the following passages (e.g., the public education part), but that was understandable since Foucault's definition is overly comprehensive and the article is not a long, comprehensive one. The last paragraph of the Lead could be seen as overly detailed, since it used a whole paragraph to discuss modernity in art, including re-phasing and definition, while the body part of art is only uses a little more words.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
All the content is relevant, up-to-date according to the publishing date of the citations and my knowledge. There should be content missing, and each paragraph can be elaborated more.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Tone neutral, and always able to see voice from different perspectives.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Sources are good, but some books missing chapters or pages, and most of them by important scholars. They may not be that current -- most of the works are from the twentieth century and not providing the up-to-date information, but are well discussed. Quotations mostly from books, and the links I checked all work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Most of what we have is well-written, but the citation style is not using a footnote but things like "were surpassed (Delanty 2007)", which makes reading hard. Haven't discovered grammatical or spelling errors. Most of the article is well-organized, but the last section (defined) is confusing. It is strange since previous section is "definition," and what contained is more like a conclusion, and need a citation.

Images and Media
Guiding questions:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
No images or media.

Checking the talk page
Guiding questions:


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
Rewrite, thinking there is a misunderstood in the topic and everything should go to "modern history," adding sources, overlap with post-modern, the idea used to against modernism, adding other related topics, etc. Overall, many need to be added or edited. It's part of a series of WikiProjects: sociology, religion, history, visual arts, philosophy, architecture, globalization, popular culture, psychology. It's different that it talks more about overall definitions without much detail.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article's written part are good, but the topic needs a lot of adding information and editing. It is good to cover different areas, but more sub-subsections (e.g., featured examples) should be added. More need to be researched academically and its influence.

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: