User:WyattD04/Evaluate an Article: Difference between revisions

 

 

Line 3: Line 3:

== Which article are you evaluating? ==

== Which article are you evaluating? ==

[[Berthold of Moosburg]]

[[Berthold of Moosburg]]

== Why you have chosen this article to evaluate? ==

== Why you have chosen this article to evaluate? ==

I choose this article for several reasons. Firstly, I choose it because it was on the list of articles for this class. Secondly, It took very little effort to find more information on this figure. This page also had several very evident gaps in it.

I choose this article for several reasons. Firstly, I choose it because it was on the list of articles for this class. Secondly, It took very little effort to find more information on this figure. This page also had several very evident gaps in it.

Line 14: Line 15:

(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.)

(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.)

Firstly, the lead section is lackluster. While the lead includes an introductory sentence, it does not give a brief overview of the page. Instead, the lead section tell us when he died, that he was a Dominican theologian, and that he taught at Regensburg in 1327. This information does not accurately summarize or describe the article’s one section, and the information included in this section is not present in the rest of the article.

regarding the content, there is also much room for improvement. while the article’s content is relevant, it is not up to date. The newest citation for the article is from 2014, and many of the cited sources are before 2008, with a large amount being before 2003.

In addition to this, there is significant content missing in this article. Content gaps are immediately apparent; the article tells us when he, yet does not tell us much of anything about his personal life. The article does not tell us how old he was at any point, what his family life looked like, his social status, where he was born and how he ended up in Moosburg, or any other information that may be relevant for the context of his life. In addition to this, there are significant gaps regarding what he did in his work. the article states he was teaching in 1327, then has a 12 year gap between that statement and when he wrote his ”Expositio super Elementationem theologicam [[Proclus|Procli]],” according to the article”.” A basic google search tells us that he directed the dominican stadium in cologne during this time, and that he helped to resolve a crisis which was caused by the conviction of Meister Eckhart’s doctrines in 1329. Information such as this leads me to believe there are many other large gaps, especially considering how short the article is.<small>[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302883237_Berthold_of_Moosburg (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302883237_Berthold_of_Moosburg]).</small>

The tone and balance seem accurate to the Wikipedia’s requirements. It is neutral, doesn’t seem heavily biased, and does not try to persuade the reader. The article seem factual, albeit lacking in significant detail.

There are only two sources and 7 notes, all of them older and few backing up points with secondary reliable information. The sources are all older than 2015, and better sources can easily be found online. Some of the links have expired, although the internet archive for the links still has them.

There are no images or media on the page.

Overall, the article seems to need significant improvements. There are few sources, massive content gaps which are easily filled through quick google searches, no media, and few citations. Overall, it’s clear no way cares about this page. This being said, the page is written neutrally and well for what information is there. this article could easily be improved by filling in the content gaps, adding more media, and getting more up to date sources.

Evaluate an article Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead section A 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. 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? (It shouldn’t.) Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Content A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another. 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 Wikipedia 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. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sources and References A 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. 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? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? Organization and writing quality The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections. 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 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? Talk page discussion The 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. 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 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? Examples of good feedback A 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.

Berthold of Moosburg

I choose this article for several reasons. Firstly, I choose it because it was on the list of articles for this class. Secondly, It took very little effort to find more information on this figure. This page also had several very evident gaps in it.

(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.)

Firstly, the lead section is lackluster. While the lead includes an introductory sentence, it does not give a brief overview of the page. Instead, the lead section tell us when he died, that he was a Dominican theologian, and that he taught at Regensburg in 1327. This information does not accurately summarize or describe the article’s one section, and the information included in this section is not present in the rest of the article.

regarding the content, there is also much room for improvement. while the article’s content is relevant, it is not up to date. The newest citation for the article is from 2014, and many of the cited sources are before 2008, with a large amount being before 2003.

In addition to this, there is significant content missing in this article. Content gaps are immediately apparent; the article tells us when he, yet does not tell us much of anything about his personal life. The article does not tell us how old he was at any point, what his family life looked like, his social status, where he was born and how he ended up in Moosburg, or any other information that may be relevant for the context of his life. In addition to this, there are significant gaps regarding what he did in his work. the article states he was teaching in 1327, then has a 12 year gap between that statement and when he wrote his Expositio super Elementationem theologicam Procli, according to the article. A basic google search tells us that he directed the dominican stadium in cologne during this time, and that he helped to resolve a crisis which was caused by the conviction of Meister Eckhart’s doctrines in 1329. Information such as this leads me to believe there are many other large gaps, especially considering how short the article is.(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302883237_Berthold_of_Moosburg).

The tone and balance seem accurate to the Wikipedia’s requirements. It is neutral, doesn’t seem heavily biased, and does not try to persuade the reader. The article seem factual, albeit lacking in significant detail.

There are only two sources and 7 notes, all of them older and few backing up points with secondary reliable information. The sources are all older than 2015, and better sources can easily be found online. Some of the links have expired, although the internet archive for the links still has them.

There are no images or media on the page.

Overall, the article seems to need significant improvements. There are few sources, massive content gaps which are easily filled through quick google searches, no media, and few citations. Overall, it’s clear no way cares about this page. This being said, the page is written neutrally and well for what information is there. this article could easily be improved by filling in the content gaps, adding more media, and getting more up to date sources.