This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: Theology of religions
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- Considering that I am taking a World Religion's course, I thought it'd be pretty interesting to have my practice evaluation be on an article that is similar around the subject of my class!
- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
When we first look at this article we can see that the lead concisely describes what this article topic is about by first defining what exactly is theology of religions.To explain what it is, the lead had created a well-organized contents table which includes brief, but valuable, material that breaks down this subject as a whole. The main points they cover are: "Purpose", "Basic three-point model", "Knitter's four-point model", "references", and "bibliography". Within the second and third example shown, each of them have a sub cateogry that splits that selected information even further. There is no unnecessary or flowery text, which is excellent since it goes straight to the point.
- Guiding questions
- 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/
The context given in the article is relevant since it contains cited support and explanations that show the meaningfulness of what this concept could do. It provides definition that helps relate and show the contrast of religions, and even introduces the models created by several scholars to try and analyze religion as a whole more.
Whenever new content is added in regards to the subject, this page is always updated. Frequent. As mentioned before, no unnecessary content is added either in the sections. If in the past there was, it was immediately removed.
- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral?
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
The article does appear neutral, and doesn't favor one position to another since it includes all the models created by scholars, and gives each model the same attention.
- 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?
All facts and quotes are backed up with reliable sources, and are cited correctly. They do reflect the available literature of this time, and the sources are both new and old. As for the links they still do work.
- 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?
Organization wise this article is incredible concise and well-written. There are no grammatical errors, and breaks each category perfectly well to the point where they even have categories within the categories to make sure nothing is missed out or blended.
- Guiding questions
- 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?
When it comes to the image part of this artcle - there are no image. Which can make the article seem dull to alot of people since an article filled with words only can be daunting and already boring.
- Guiding questions
- 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?
When it comes to the type of conversations in the 'talk selection', they are mostly talking about corrections and double checking to see if they should avert a previous passage another way - which is a good sign. The rating that this article got is a B,
- Guiding questions
- 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?
Despite it getting a B by wikipedia, if I were to give it a rating of my own I would give it an A-. The article's strength is surely the information and explanations provided, but it can be improved by adding more imagery to help readers focus and maintain attention. Overall it is completed.
- 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:
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: Theology of religions
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- Considering that I am taking a World Religion's course, I thought it'd be pretty interesting to have my practice evaluation be on an article that is similar around the subject of my class!
- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
When we first look at this article we can see that the lead concisely describes what this article topic is about by first defining what exactly is theology of religions.To explain what it is, the lead had created a well-organized contents table which includes brief, but valuable, material that breaks down this subject as a whole. The main points they cover are: "Purpose", "Basic three-point model", "Knitter's four-point model", "references", and "bibliography". Within the second and third example shown, each of them have a sub cateogry that splits that selected information even further. There is no unnecessary or flowery text, which is excellent since it goes straight to the point.
- Guiding questions
- 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/
The context given in the article is relevant since it contains cited support and explanations that show the meaningfulness of what this concept could do. It provides definition that helps relate and show the contrast of religions, and even introduces the models created by several scholars to try and analyze religion as a whole more.
Whenever new content is added in regards to the subject, this page is always updated. Frequent. As mentioned before, no unnecessary content is added either in the sections. If in the past there was, it was immediately removed.
- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral?
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
The article does appear neutral, and doesn't favor one position to another since it includes all the models created by scholars, and gives each model the same attention.
- 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?
All facts and quotes are backed up with reliable sources, and are cited correctly. They do reflect the available literature of this time, and the sources are both new and old. As for the links they still do work.
- 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?
Organization wise this article is incredible concise and well-written. There are no grammatical errors, and breaks each category perfectly well to the point where they even have categories within the categories to make sure nothing is missed out or blended.
- Guiding questions
- 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?
When it comes to the image part of this artcle - there are no image. Which can make the article seem dull to alot of people since an article filled with words only can be daunting and already boring.
- Guiding questions
- 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?
When it comes to the type of conversations in the 'talk selection', they are mostly talking about corrections and double checking to see if they should avert a previous passage another way - which is a good sign. The rating that this article got is a B,
- Guiding questions
- 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?
Despite it getting a B by wikipedia, if I were to give it a rating of my own I would give it an A-. The article's strength is surely the information and explanations provided, but it can be improved by adding more imagery to help readers focus and maintain attention. Overall it is completed.
- 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: