User:Toni.leigh.jones/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: Yoruba religion
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I choose this article because of the amount of knowledge that I do have on the subject and my current understanding and I wished to see how the article presented this material as well as learn more on the subject.

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 Lead of the article has a opening sentence that does clearly introduce the topic. Some of the main topic of the article are presented in the Lead as well as some information that is not expanded on later. The Lead is not overly detailed but does contain some information more that being a clear and concise introduction that could have been included later and been expanded on.

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

 * The content of the article is related to the topic for the most part and it appears to be current information. Some content that is missing is more on the various Orishas and also on the practices and ritual that are performed in the religion.

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 over-represented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

 * The tone and balance of the article is neutral with nothing that appears to be bias. It presents information and details about various part with no position on debates or topics. It does not appear to be persuading the reader and there was no real viewpoints to be found.

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

 * The sources do back up the information and the text tend to state where the information came from as. There are multiple sources that span a chuck of the information. The most current source is within the last 10 years and the oldest is from the 70's so the information spans a wide gap of time and could use an update because are always changing and evolving.

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

 * The article is easy to read most of the time. There can be multiple spellings of the names and concepts and sticking to one version may have made it easier to read. The last section of other religions that extend from the Yoruba people is very hard to follow and understand and did not fit into the rest of the body of work. Some sections could have divided up into better subcategories and been in a better order like the section on the Orisha and their attributes should have come before the break down of each one.

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

 * The images are small and easy to miss and do little to enhance the understanding of the topic but are still related to the topic. The captions are easy to understand information and are decent.

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

 * The conversations that are happening in the talk pages are that of making sure the information is correct as well helping each other to clean up the page and help to fix the organization of the article. The article is a C- Class and has been in five WikiProjects as of now. The way that the topic is discussed differs from the way that we talked about it in class by leaving out the connection to certain objects and the rituals involved as well as having more information of the creation as well as the connection that it holds in other culture and religions of today.

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

 * My overall impression of the article is that it could use more information on different practices and ritual and how the people of Yoruba use their religion in their everyday life. The article could uses some better organizing of the sections creating more subcategories. The strength is that the page is unbiased and easy to read and gives explanations on words and translations. At the current stage I would say that the page is incomplete and could use an update.

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: