User:Aannulis/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) History of structural engineering
• Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I would like to be a structural engineer so this was very interesting

Lead

Guiding questions

yes it does include an introductory sentence and a brief description of the major sections of the article. The lead is detailed enough to get a good idea of what is included in the article but concise enough to be an introduction.

• 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?

Content

Guiding questions

Yes the content is relevant to the topic, it starts with early structural engineering with the Egyptians, the ancient Romans and then continues into the medieval times and the 17th century. Then there is a section on modern structural engineering which keeps this article up to date, and ends with early 21st century and the use of computers in structural engineering. This article does not deal with any equity gaps.

• 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?
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions

This article was very neutral and was not biased as it was a history article and gave a very moderate unbiased history of structural engineering. The only underrepresented view point I could think of is one of an underrepresented racial or socioeconomic class.

• 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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions

the sources are current and reliable

• 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?
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions

I found the article very concise and easy to read. There were not any grammatical issues that I came across, and was broken down into 2 sections which were modern and historical.

• 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?

Images and Media

Guiding questions

there are images in the article that show relevant buildings and projects that aid in comprehension of the article. the images are put to the side of the article so that that do not get in the way of reading and distract the reader.

• 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?

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions

I did not see much on the talk page, it is in many projects such as: civil engineering, architecture, engineering, history, technology, ancient Egypt and archeology.

We have not discussed this in class so Wikipedia discusses it in a different way.

• 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?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions

I really liked the article, it was very good in being concise and describing the brief history. It could be improved by showing the histories of more underrepresented groups, but other than that it was very good. I would say it was very well developed.

• 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?

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: