User:Jpegthebitmap/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
Sources and ReferencesA Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article because it was a class C article on the list that had a variety of sources, and also because I find Abbasid Baghdad very interesting.
Evaluate the article
[edit](Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
Content-wise, the information on the page is accurate but sparse. Most of the article lists the works of ibn Tariq, thought it is missing an explanation of what the books are about, as well as (if it is known) the European translators of these texts. The citations are very old, with one book being from 1900 and most of the other books cited being from the 1960s-1980s, and only one recent citation (2007).
Tone-wise, the article is written neutrally, thought it does go out of its way to include that ibn Tariq drew from Sanskrit work. All sources are also Western in origin.
Source-wise, the information in the article is old and disorganized. Only a third of the sources are from the most recent half of a century and two of the sources are in German and from the German Empire (which could have some strong biases in itself). Also, the citation structure of the page has 4 notes from 3 sources and the rest of the information comes from some nebulous space in the long further reading section, which makes the information in this article very difficult to evaluate.
Moving to the talk page, there are three discussions, of which two are unreplied to and one of which is addressing the lack of updates and the gaps I identified. The page is also part of several wikiprojects, including Iran, astrology, astronomy, and biographies of science and academia and the history of science, where it is rated as start or low. The talk discussions are as presented in class, though.