User:AbbSe37/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Servilia (mother of Brutus)
 * I decided to evaluate this article because it is the article I want to work on this semester in my course. Servilia's page is very sparse and I feel like I can improve it.

Lead

 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The introductory sentence of the Lead concisely describes the article's content. The Lead does not go over all the sections that are talked about in the article. The Lead spends too much time on her romantic and sexual relationships with other Roman men, and goes into too great of detail on her relationship with Caesar. The Lead also includes quotes that Caesar apparently said about Servilia, but these quotes do not reappear in the article.

Content

 * 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?

Content evaluation
Some aspects of the content is relevant to the topic, however there is a heavy focus on other people in Servilia's article, and not her. There is also a heavy focus on her romantic and sexual relationships throughout. Some of the content appears to be relatively up to date. An editor made a television and media section, where they reference a film made in 2018. I am not sure about the relevance of this section and it is something that I want to review. There seems to be a lot of missing information on Servilia's life and activity. There is nothing about what she did aside from her relationships.

Tone and Balance

 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is very neutral in tone. There does not appear to be any particular biases, or favour put on any one position. The only critique I have is the lack of concern or notice taken to any other aspects of her life aside from her relationships.

Sources and References

 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
Some sources are very good. They use Plutarch and Livy for primary sources. Other sources are for information that I do not think is particularly relevant to Servilia. All the links seem to work to a certain extent; some just take me to an unusable google books page (which I am not sure if that is allowed or not). There is one link for a source about pearls that leads to a questionable website, which I am not sure is peer-reviewed or overly reliable.

Organization

 * 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 evaluation
The article is almost too concise, and a little messy in its execution. It seems to be a jumble of factoids about Servilia, and reflects a poor editing job. It seems like whoever created this page did not try too hard to flesh out any of the facts about Servilia.

Images and Media

 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
The article includes one image which is a screenshot from the Rome television show (Servilia's character). This is not a good photo and does not help the article at all. There needs to be more images, and the article needs to be rearranged in a more aesthetically pleasing way.

Checking the talk page

 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The last conversations on this article was in 2007, it seems to have been forgotten for the most part. They have noticed the same issues with the page as I have, but there are no ongoing conversations about the page. The article is rating as a start class. It is a part of three WikiProjects: Women's History, Classical Greece and Rome, and Royalty and Nobility.

Overall impressions

 * 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?

Overall evaluation
The article, overall, is very poor. Its strengths lie in the coverage of Servilia's connections with Caesar and other important figures. They also have relatively good coverage on her family life. The article can be improved by getting more information about other aspects of her life, and contextualizing some of the points that already exist in the article. This article is very poorly developed and needs a lot of work done to it.

Optional activity

 * 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: