User:Dallinslade/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: World religions
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
I have chosen this article to evaluate because I am very interested to learn what people around the world believe. Not only do I want to see what they believe but I would like to understand why the believe what they do.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, but could be improved. The Lead states the five largest religions rather than discussing religion around the globe.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes. The main points to the articles are the definition of religion and how it is seen in the world today. both are mentioned in the Lead.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. The Lead talks about the five major religions but doesn't expand on them individually.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is Overly detailed.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes. The articles content covers religion in the world.
Is the content up-to-date? The article is up to date. Receives a lot of edits, the last one being a month ago.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content that is missing would be in what part of the worlds practice what religion.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article deals with a topic that is widely discussed and taught.

Is the article neutral? Yes. in a topic such as religion you might expect to see some bias opinions but the article stayed neutral.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the article stayed neutral.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, it was a well discussed article.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the article remained neutral.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All facts in the article are back up with reliable sources.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes the sources are thorough.
Are the sources current? The sources are up to date.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The article does not includes a variety of sources. Uses the same source over and over again.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links work.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is a bit tough to read and doesn't have a natural flow to it.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I was unable to see any errors.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the article is well organized.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article does include one image.
Are images well-captioned? Yes.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, but could be better.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? No conversations appear to have taken place.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Article is rated well. it was included in a wikiproject.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? In this article it focuses on the viewpoint of others rather i like to see the viewpoint of the believers.

What is the article's overall status? Good.
What are the article's strengths? Very factual
How can the article be improved? Needs more flow and more viewpoints.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is well developed but needs more key-points.

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 — ~~~~