User:Awy2006/Evaluate an Article

Lead section The introductory paragraph is quite good — it is concise, informative, and well written. It includes a good introduction to the content in the rest of the article, and doesn't include irrelevant information.

Content The content of the article is good, and it's all relevant to the topic. It leaves the reader with a good understanding of Medieval manuscripts and doesn't have extraneous information. The equity gaps on this topic are not entirely relevant to marginalized groups in the present day, but nevertheless the article does address issues regarding the socioeconomic gap in accessing manuscripts.

Tone and Balance The tone of this article is quite neutral, mostly reporting facts about Medieval manuscripts, their production, usage, history etc. There isn't content that is being used to sway the reader towards particular points of view. Topics of controversy are covered neutrally too — such as manuscripts about religion and politics — a collection of factual information, not propaganda.

Sources and References The citations are slightly out of date — most of them are from around 2 decades ago or more. This might be acceptable though, given the topic: It deals with Medieval manuscripts, and these are unlikely (impossible) to change in modern day, besides new discovery of information. The literature cited is not the most accessible though, many articles or papers are behind paywalls of large databases. Some other links are unfortunately broken too.

Organization and writing quality I like the writing and the organization — it makes sense, broken down first chronologically and then by specific aspects of Medieval manuscripts. For example, the sections are in chronological order first, with "late manuscripts" last, and the information within each relative time period can be again broken down into "trade of manuscripts" and "manuscripts and Paris".

Images and Media The images are quite nicely placed and relevant. It is good to have some visuals on the content of the article and see what Medieval manuscripts actually looked like.

Talk page discussion The talk page is mostly discussing citations, wording, and formatting of the content, not the information itself. It was mostly written by a single contributor who had a history project to create a Wikipedia page on a particular topic. Some other Wikipedians believe that it is not sourced fully enough (and I rather agree). There seem to have been some changes regarding the formatting of the article, and the way it is now makes a lot of sense to me. The content doesn't overlap completely with the content we read about in class, but the part that does lie in the intersection matches what I knew from the readings. It, instead of discussing the impact of these manuscripts as much, provides background on how it was developed and used.

Overall impressions Perhaps I am not familiar enough with Medieval manuscripts to be authoritative on whether this article is a good summary of known information on the topic, but to me, it does not seem lacking in any particular area. I think that the article in general has very good, relevant, and interesting content. One thing that could be brushed up on is specific word choices and sentence structures to make the article read a slight bit more smoothly.