User:Paryamehsad/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)
  • Anthropology of religion
• Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
  • I bring knowledge in the field of Anthropology and interest in religion.

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?
  • No.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • There appears to be no lead.

Lead evaluation

There is no lead. Just the definition of the article's title. Could use an explanation that the article will discuss the history and definition of the anthropology of religion.

Content

Guiding questions

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
  • Yes.
• Is the content up-to-date?
  • Not quite because the earliest source is from 2007.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • No content is missing. The lead could be more descriptive however.

Content evaluation

The History section starts out of nowhere and is heard to understand. An explanation detailing the content of the History section is needed. The section with the Definition of Religion is a little bias and not objective. The grammar needs to be edited. The content does not seem to make sense overall.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions

• Is the article neutral?
  • No.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • Yes, first sentence of the Definition of Religion section.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Many viewpoints seem to be missing. It could be more detailed. All types of religions and their histories should be included.
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No.

Tone and balance evaluation

A few minor sentences need to be re-evaluated so they can be more objective.

Sources and References

Guiding questions

• 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?

Organization

Guiding questions

• 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

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Yes, one picture.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • No, the grammar is missing. Explanation of what the actual picture is is missing.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Yes.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes.

Images and media evaluation

The article could use more pictures and the picture used is irrelevant to the topic. It's one small example of religious practices. Could use a better explanation to explain what the picture used is rather than where it is found. Readers may be confused on the relevance and the meaning.

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
  • How to cover the vast amount of information surrounding the topic.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • Yes, it is a part of the "Academic disciplines" category. The rating seems average.
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
  • The way this Wikipedia discusses the topic differs from the way we've talked about it in class because it seems bias and focused on one specific section of religion rather than the whole of religion. It doesn't give a voice to religions around the world and focuses on a few aspects of religion.

Talk page evaluation

The last time this page was edited was in 2003. It needs more recent and accurate updates. The POV of this articles is also anti-science which many users voiced they disagree with because it has a bias approach. There are also many problems with the claims.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions

• What is the article's overall status?
  • It is active and many people disagree with the claims. Upon reading it I would have to agree with them.
• What are the article's strengths?
  • The overall outline of the article is clear.
• How can the article be improved?
  • The article can be improved by putting a better lead, using more objective approaches rather than an anti-science approach and with better claims.
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
  • The article is not complete or well-developed. While it is on the right track it requires a lot of work to be done. It is underdeveloped.

Overall evaluation

Overall, the article needs to be fixed.

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: