User:Sora360/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article
[edit]This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: Traditional African religions
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I am interested in how groups of people view and interpret their lives and the world.
Lead
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Yes, the introductory sentence is clear and concise about the topic. The wording of the second sentence seems grammatically confusing. The Lead does not include information about "Spread," but it seems to cover most of what is written in the rest of the article. I am not sure if quoting the author Lugira (with no background of this author) violates Wikipedia plagiarism rules.
- 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
[edit]Content
[edit]- Guiding questions
- "The Semitic Abrahamic religion of Judaism is comparable to the latter world view." I'm not sure if this content fits into the topic of Traditional African religions, not comparative religions. The rest of the content sticks with the topic. The content could be more up-to-date as most of the references are more than 10 years old.
- 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
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Yes, there seems to be a neutral tone. No, it does not seem to be heavily biased toward any particular position.
- 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
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]- Guiding questions
- There are some facts backed up by a news source like BBC and NPR.
- Link 22 doesn't work. It also seems to be a primary source.
- 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
[edit]Organization
[edit]- Guiding questions
- I am wondering if "Ceremonies" could go under the "Practices and rituals" section. I wonder if there is a better way to organize the sections. They seem to be random and without intent. There are some grammatical errors.
- 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
[edit]Images and Media
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Yes.
- 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
[edit]Checking the talk page
[edit]- Guiding questions
- The article is rated B-Class. Yes, it is a part of 4 WikiProjects. There was a long conversation on whether to title the page "Religions" or "Religion."
- 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
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]- Guiding questions
- The article's overall status is B-Class. The strengths are in its content. It provides information relevant to the topic. It can be improved by organization/display of information and more clarity around the content. There are also grammatical mistakes. I would say that this article is underdeveloped and more could be added.
- 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
[edit]Optional activity
[edit]- 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: