User:Mooreilly/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: Praxeology
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. The subject interests me because it has to do with how humans purposefully do things rather than just unintentionally.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it gives a definition of what the term means.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it is a very brief description noting each section.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything that is presented is explained throughout article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, it explains how and when the term was first discovered and in what ways it has been used throughout history.
Is the content up-to-date? Looking through the edit history, there have been multiple revisions this year alone.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The article could include more about its affect on Poland. Otherwise I do not see anything is missing or put in the article when it shouldn't be.

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? Yes, the viewpoint on Austrias economics gets a full section which doest seem to make the article flow.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the article uses many references throughout the article.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
Are the sources current? Some of them but not all.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? For the most part. Some areas could be transferred into bullet points rather than sentences.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Some grammatical, but did not notice any spelling errors.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Could be broken down a little bit better with regards to the first section.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? A few conversations that are being said: about the subjectivity of previous edits, if it is considered a science, and the longest conversation involves what Praxeology is.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Rated start class. It is part of the following WikiProjects: Philosophy, Economics, Libertarianism, and Sociology.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? N/A

What is the article's overall status? The article has room for improvement, seems like it could be organized better.
What are the article's strengths? It holds many good facts and has the sources to back them up.
How can the article be improved? Organization of sections
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Being unfamiliar with the subject I am unsure, but if I were to guess, this article probably has some facts that could be included.

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 — ~~~~