User:Todd Andrea/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Gnosticism

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article to evaluate because I am interested in the topic. I just recently presented on this topic in relation to our class content so I am interested in further developing my understanding.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

- Yes.

- Yes.

- No, I don't believe so.

- Yes, it is detailed yet concise.

Content:

- Yes.

- There were dates from the early 2000's!

- No.

- I don't believe it addresses the equity gap. I could see how gnostics are relatively underrepresented but in terms of oppressive underrepresentation, I wouldn't say so.

Tone and Balance:

- Yes.

- No.

- I wouldn't say so, no.

- Yes.

- No.

Sources and References:

- I believe so.

- Yes.

- Current as of the early 2000's.

- Yes. No.

- I'm sure there are. I would say we could implement socks even more current than 2006.

- Yes, they do work.

Organization and Writing Quality:

- I would say so, yes.

- Not that I could find.

- Yes.

Images and Media:

- Yes.

- Yes.

- I believe so, yes.

- Yes.

Talk page discussion:

- I'm finding conversations about the article, both diving deeper into certain aspects of it and asking questions.

- I'm not seeing a rating.

- The Wiki page discusses it in a more historical way while we discussed it in a more specific way to women and gender relations.

Overall Impressions:

- I would say the status is positive!

- The articles strengths are that it is very historically well rounded.

- I wish the article dove deeper into each "concept."

- I would say the article is definitely well developed and well rounded. I appreciated that it provided historical and parallel information, which was helpful! I did not think it was under-developed.

~ Todd Andrea