User:Ada jamanova/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.


 * Name of article: Talk: Germanic mythology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have a passion and interest in history and mythology that will allow me to evaluate the topic easier. I noticed the amount of room for improvement available and will like to invest time into learning about German mythology. The information available gives a great basis for more in-depth and thorough additions.

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 Lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. However, it lacks a concrete outline of what is considered Germanic mythology and background on the topic, The Lead does includes a brief description of the article's major sections, but also includes sections that do not clearly appear in the article. The Lead does include information that is not present in the article. There is a concise lead to begin with, a bit too concise.

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

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic and up-to date. There is content missing though what is present belongs. The content does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

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 neutral. There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. There are no over or underrepresented viewpoints. No persuasion is present.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Most facts are backed up by reliable secondary source information. However, the sources are not thorough and do not reflect the available literature on the topic. The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. They are current, though they do not include historically marginalized individuals. The links work well.

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 well-written, concise, clear and easy to read. There seems to be no grammatical or spelling errors. And what is present is well-organized.

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 does include a single image that enhances understating of the topic. The image is well captioned and adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. It's layout is inoffensive.

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
A conversation discusses whether the page primarily represents myths of people characterized as speakers of Germanic languages, or is it primarily about the mythology of people characterized as "Germani" by the ancient Romans. It is concluded that the article primarily focuses on people characterized as speakers of the Germanic languages, since Norse mythology is included and the Norse where not characterized as "Germani" by the ancient Romans. It is rated as stub-class and of top importance. It is part of one active Wikiprojects, WikiProject Mythology.

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's overall status is unfinished. The strength are it's links and concise nature. Improvement can come from a more thorough look into the myths and it's characters.

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: