User:Brandon Raich/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: Rabbula Gospels
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. It is similar to our manuscripts and looks interesting


 * 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
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, It mentions that some of the pages were over-painted, but that is not stated anywhere else in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise, maybe a little too much so

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?

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? No. There are whole paragraphs that are uncited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? One is, but most are getting a bit dated.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, They work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It seems well written for the most part.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, though more details could have been include if they're avalable

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe they do.
 * 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? There are no conversations.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? it is Rated C. It is a part of 4 wiki-projects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It discusses psychical descriptions more and restoration work.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Mostly complete
 * What are the article's strengths? It is written well but is lacking in some details
 * How can the article be improved? More details could be added and more citations are needed. More citations are needed. Many statements are not cited.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?I think this article is a underdeveloped. More information could be added about the site it was found, it's importance within the realms of medieval manuscripts could have added too as well as details on the reworking that has been done.

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 — ~ I can't figure out how to do this.