User:Allied.8877/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: (link) Statue of John of Nepomuk, Charles Bridge
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I  chose this article because Christian imagery is something I'm interested in, and especially with Venice having Christian themes, I  felt like reading an article about a Christian statue, even if it isn't related to Venice, would be beneficial in possibly understanding some of the imagery we see in class. This article also has more writing than some of them do, but clearly also has weaknesses.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, it doesn't mention anything about the sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, when the sculpture was finished and where it is installed.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise but with some details that seem irrelevant or aren't elaborated on later.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is definitely a gap in the content, and the content does seem really disjointed and unconnected.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It definitely doesn't deal with an underrepresented population, but the topic might be underrepresented---it's a sculpture from the 1800s, which I feel like probably isn't one of the most searched for topics.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Considering there are gaps in the content, I don't think they reflect all the available literature.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I  don't think they use sources from marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is definitely concise and clear but the content does not read smoothly
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Technically no, it's just choppy.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? It has two images, and a map
 * Are images well-captioned? No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? None
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It's a part of 4 Wikiprojects, all of which are rated Stub-class
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It is definitely more centered around the facts without any interpretation of the symbolism in the sculpture or the styles used.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Incomplete but a good starting point
 * What are the article's strengths? It does bring up some cool, interesting facts about the sculpture
 * How can the article be improved? It definitely needs to go into more depth about the history of the sculpture and other aspects of its creation
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Underdeveloped and what is there is poorly developed.

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: Talk:Statue of John of Nepomuk, Charles Bridge