User:Arika.solarez21/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: Boy with Thorn
 * This article provides a brief, informative description of a 1st-century Roman sculpture, Boy with Thorn. Included in the article is the background surrounding the sculpture and why it is salient.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The introductory sentence clearly states what the article is covering. There is a comprehensible synopsis breaking down the information of the major sections that the article provides. The article includes links to details that are mentioned but not entirely present in the article itself. The Lead is a bit overwhelming with various historical places and names however, there is information provided for all the major history plots mentioned.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article's content is relevant to the topic in that, there is a concise background regarding what the article is covering as well as in depth details of the era in which this sculpture is prominent. This article page was last updated this year on February 18, 2020 so the content is up to date. This wikipedia page provides content that formally goes into the history of the topic and along with accredited sources. There does not seem to be any content that is missing as well.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article holds a neutral tone throughout, simply stating facts and information in regard to the topic. There does not appear to be any bias surrounding the article and viewpoints are compact and clear throughout. The article is a short summary supplying background of the topic therefore, it does not attempt to persuade the reader towards a certain position.


 * 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?

Sources and References Guiding questions


The facts stated are backed up by reliable references. The sources are thorough and deliver secondary information of what is stated in the article. The sources provided in the reference page were from the mid to late 1900's however, this could be because these references are perpetual in time. When checking the links they all worked and provided additional information to what was mentioned.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is very easy to read. There were no noticable errors and there was a well-organized structure that the article held. When going into a different subject regarding the topic, the article would flow into the next section, breaking down and reflecting upon the major points of the article's topic.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

The article does include a couple of images that give visuals for the readers directly on the topic. The captions of the images are detailed and clearly explain what the reader is looking at. The images, to the best of my knowledge, adhere to the copyright regulations that Wikipedia upholds. The images are visually appealing in the way they are laid out. They do not get in the way of the reader's attention and provide necessary input for the article.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

Upon checking the revision history, there are many revisions that date back to 2009. Each revision provides concise comments of why each edit was made. This article is in fact in collaboration with WikiProject Visual Arts in order to enhance coverage regarding visual arts on Wikipedia.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

I would say that the overall status of the article is structurally secure. Some strengths include detailed information of the topic, plenty of additional sources along with a well-organized form. One improvement would be executing a language that is easy to translate for people who are unfamiliar with 1st-century art. I think the article holds a status of completion, any more information would have been redundant or unnecessary.


 * 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?

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: