User:Txtoon/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)Ibn al-Haytham
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. His work with optics and perspective interested me. The effects that perspective had on Renaissance art is amazing.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the article began by listing the fields of study that he studied. After it says each field, they began to expand on each.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The intro paragraph illustrates the different parts of the article by quickly summarizing optics, perspective, and his other concepts.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. The lead says how al-Haytham was the first to illustrate his perspective that sight comes from things reflecting to people's eyes. This is not discussed in the article, only the lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very concise. It discusses his general work and introduces his concepts.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the article is very relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, there are citations up to 2019, which means new discoveries are still being added.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think all the information belongs there.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, this page is a biography page.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, the article is very neutral. There are no positive or negative commentary throughout the article. There are only the facts stated.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No points seem heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, I would say everything is added in a way that covers the material, but is not overly-concise.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. The majority of the article is discussing his achievements, so the reader will most likely have a positive effect on the reader. However, the article seems to tell facts, rather than sway.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are plenty of sources all covering the same information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources are different pages discussing the biography of al-Haytham.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the latest source is from 2019.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, there are many different citations in this article, from all sorts of people.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Most of the links work, but two of them did not function.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the article is very concise and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I saw.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the article is split into his different fields of work. And then within this work, he splits into each specific theory.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, especially with the math theories.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, each image has a caption to explain the image.
 * 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? Most the conversations are about the validity of the sources.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article has been rated as B-class and a delisted good article.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We discuss the historical repercussion, rather than the science in depth.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Completed
 * What are the article's strengths? The article discusses a lot and talks about his works in depth.
 * How can the article be improved? The article discussed all his scientific theories, but I think they could have added more about the historical context behind each theory, especially since many of them were stolen to Europe.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? This article seems very completed. It is a large article that talks about all his history, work, theories, and life. Therefore, I would say 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: