User:Acrotty/Evaluate an Article

{| class="wikitable" Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:
 * Evaluate an article
 * Evaluate an article

Lead section
A 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.


 * 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? (It shouldn't.)
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia 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.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
A 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.


 * 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * 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?

Talk page discussion
The 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.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * 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?

Examples of good feedback
A 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.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting
 * }

Which article are you evaluating?
Battle of Adrianople (1205)

Why have you chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am interested in the crusades, and I wanted to find out more about how the battles were fought. I thought it pertained well to the course material and since I enjoy military history, I thought it would make this assignment less difficult for me.

Evaluate the article
I am evaluating an article on the Battle of Adrianople (1205) during the crusades.

The first thing I noticed right off the bat while reading is that this article seems to be heavily written through the eyes of the crusaders and not the defenders. The article does not distract and stays on course discussing the battle and any background information that you might find important. The sources seemed to be outdated since the latest source seems to be from 2007. This was confusing though since the sources that are sighted do not seem to all be in the references section of the article. While I feel the article is written is heavily through a crusader perspective as mentioned on the talk page about the article. I do like that there is at least some background information about the byzantine forces that were defending the castle such as troop numbers or even what the Tsar of Bulgaria's relations were to the crusaders of the Latin empire. There certainly is a lot more information about the crusaders in this article and I believe the author might have purposefully looked more into the crusaders view on the siege that took place and ignored the Bulgarian perspective. When checking the citations only two of the citation links even worked although the information cited from the article matches with that in the wiki article. One of the links was from a wiki source page which I found not be appropriate here although the other citation that did work was from a Bulgarian archaeology page which was nice to see, and I found rather appropriate since the article is underrepresenting the Bulgarian side of the battle. The authors tone seems to be neutral throughout the article although as mentioned before I feel they go into more detail about the crusaders rather than the Bulgarians. This article is a part of a few wiki projects. There are a few technical issues with the article mentioned on the talk page such as links redirecting to the wrong pages and things, but it seems that it is still not a highly rated article as it is ranked of low or mid importance in many of the wiki projects it is included in. It is also rated as a C-class article.