User:Edv995

The article being evaluated is History of Political Science

•Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

One thing that distracted from the article was that there was a seemingly random sentence regarding a work done in India under the Ancient Western heading instead of the clearly labeled India heading. There was also a paragraph discussing Arab beliefs in the Western Medieval section, which would do well to be relocated. In this section it seemed like there was a large content gap and the author filled it with irrelevant information. The whole section could use a rewrite.

•Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The author often says things such as "this is best interpreted as" which leads the reader to evaluate a source a certain way, which is clear bias. In the article there are also phrases that show a personal opinion not being attached to any citation, which means it was most likely an opinion of the author.

•Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

There is a main focus on the Western aspects of political science, but not much at all that is focused on places such as India, China, and the Middle East. Even when the other places have their own category there is next to no detail regarding their impact on political science.

•Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

The citations are generally accurate, however, there aren't always citations where they should be within the article. A lot of information is underrepresented.

• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

As stated above, there are not always appropriate citations for claims that should be cited.

•Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

A lot could be added to most of the sections, however what I noticed the most was the lack of information about politics in the early Middle East which I know just from class readings that there is a lot more to be added.

• Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

The latest, and only, conversations on the Talk page are a few criticizing remarks about the lack of citations and a comment saying that someone was going to delete this article because it didn't deserve to be a separate article from what could be found on the history tab of the regular political science page, and they were going to merge this page into the other.

•How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

This article is C-class rated and is ranked as vitally important to the history section of Wikipedia. It is not a part of any WikiProjects from what I could tell.

•How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Not much differs in the content except for the fact that the author doesn't seem to find much significance in the impact of places like the Middle East on the history of political science.