how do you evaluate an enclycopedia artcie?

Answer 1

The article should be

1. *factual*

Verify the validity and accuracy of information contained in the article by comparing several sources generally recognized as valid and trustworthy (for instance, the dictionary, another encyclopedia, other references).

For instance, you'd want to check information you found in Encyclopedia Brittanica against Encarta, Wikipedia ("open source" information which is monitored for accuracy) and a professionally compiled database related to your subject. You would NOT want to check it against randomly Googled articles which cited no responsible, recognized sources.

2. *recent*

Try to determine the date when the information was published. "most recent" doesn't necessarily mean "most complete" or "most accurate", but it should at least contain any important updates. [Hey, six months ago Pluto was still a planet -- see what we mean by "recent"? ;-) ]

3. *comprehensive*

The article should contain all of the major facts pertaining to the subject and at least a few minor points of interest. Again, check this against other sources of information on the same topic to see what's included and what's left out of the source you're evaluating.

4. *interesting*

This isn't a strict criterion and some people may even say it's not necessary. In any event, it's subjective -- what you find interesting might bore me to tears, etc. But articles should draw the reader in and hold their attention; they should also be well-organized and easy to understand.

Good , clear graphics or simple, well-organized, captioned pictures are helpful too -- you get a much better "feel" for information if you can associate it with visual images

Hope this helps!

Answer 2

You might do something like that by evaluating the author and his sources for the article. You might also compare the article between two or more different enclycopedia's. Do you know the source of the articles in wikipedia.com? It is an interesting concept.