User:Runnxr/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]The subject of study for this class is DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion). Religion is a core element of DEI and is something that must be considered when designing technology. When browsing for articles to evaluate, my group and I came upon the "Parody religion" Wikipedia article and noticed that it was rated as a Start-Class article, meaning it has potential for additions and improvements. Because of this potential, we believe we could add more information that could help inform others about parody religion.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead Section
The article has a clear and concise lead section as the first sentence clearly informs the reader of what the term parody religion means. Following this are a couple paragraphs which expand on the goal of parody religion and a couple examples on what it is. The content in this section provides a general explanation while also elaborating when needed for clarification purposes.
Tone and Balance
As the name in the topic itself includes "parody", I could see how it could be difficult for editors to keep biases to themselves. The word parody could accidentally be considered synonymous with the word joke, which could lead to statements that minimize the legitimacy of the subject and belief itself. The article does use the word joke to describe some of the parody religions which could be harmful.
Sources and References
The article contains numerous references to provide secondary sources of information. The sources provided are thorough and the links work correctly. A lot of them are from published books, but some are from news websites (ex: BBC) which do have a history of being biased.
Content & Images and Media
The article lacks content, images and media. There are only two images listed on it and they do not add much to the article. This opens up the door for adding sources that can help illustrate the topic and help readers visualize the various parody religions.
Overall Impression
Overall, the article does provide a general definition of the topic as well as some examples, but I believe there are different avenues that can be explored and added to it. For example, adding sections on the history and the present state of these religions would help provide insight into the concept.