User:Zach Lienemann/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: Mariner's Astrolabe
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I have chosen to evaluate this article because It relates to history of science, and is a article related to an activity from class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?: yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?: No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes (It says instrument was called a ring, but nowhere else in the article does it say this specifically.)
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is consise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I don't know. I don't think so.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I don't know.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes/ lots of books cited.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, all but one.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I think so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Could use work.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Lots of talk about sources. Some talk on Disputable claims.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated start-class / bottom importance in Wiki-project Astronomy.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? No.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Still in start class, needs fleshing out.
 * What are the article's strengths? Lots of pictures is definitely a plus.
 * How can the article be improved? Article can be improved with a "usage" section
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say that this article is underdeveloped.

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: